|
requires the Division to provide such research services to the public. Instead, the Division provides
<br />an opportunity at both the Denver and Durango Offices for the public to visit the office during normal
<br />business hours to review whatever permit files an individual or group may have an interest in. The
<br />Division's Denver Office contains files for operations in all 63 counties in the State. The Durango
<br />Office contains public files only for operations located in the following southwest Colorado counties:
<br />Alamosa, Archuleta, Conejos, Delta, Dolores, Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mesa, Mineral, Montezuma,
<br />Montrose, Ouray, Rio Grande, Saguache, San Juan, and San Miguel. Business hours at both offices
<br />are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m Monday through Friday except holidays. Please be sure to call our Durango
<br />Office prior to any office visits as the field office staff is frequently out of the office on site
<br />inspections. If you would like to obtain "the names and addresses of all examples of such operations"
<br />as requested in your letter, please feel free to visit one of our offices where we have files available for
<br />your review.
<br />It appears that your copy of the Construction Material Rules and Regulations is out of date, The
<br />current version of the Rules has an effective date of January, 1996. Please call our Denver Office if
<br />you would like a current version of the Construction Materials Act & Rules sent to you. The current
<br />price is 55.00 for the Act & Aules plus S3.00 for shipping & handling. In the current version of the
<br />Rules, Rule 1.6.2 (dl pertains to publication of the newspaper notice, and Rule 1.6.2 (e) pertains to
<br />mailing or personally serving notices to surface owners.
<br />You are incorrect in asserting that the Orion Pit application was filed on October 26, 1994, The
<br />Division received an incomplete application package for the proposed Orion Pit on October 27, 1994.
<br />As the Division has explained to you and the applicant in previous correspondence, the application was
<br />not deemed complete and therefore not considered received, filed, or submitted until June 3, 1997.
<br />As such, the publication of the newspaper notice on the dates indicated in your letter was premature
<br />as explained above.
<br />Regarding your query about the terms "after filing" and "deemed complete", the completeness
<br />requirement is found in several sections of the Rules, depending on whether the requirement pertains
<br />to application fee submittal requirements (Rule 1 .4.1 (1)), public notice requirements (Rule 1.6.2 (11),
<br />or the requirements for application exhibits (Rule 6), Also, please refer to the portion of Rute 1 .4.1
<br />(1) which states that "All information submitted in an application must be accurate and complete".
<br />Additional support for the requirement that applications be complete before statutory time limits begin
<br />to run can be found in the Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose, Amendments
<br />to the Mineral Rules and Regulations, November 1990. Item 26 of this document states that "In order
<br />for permit applicants to improve applications without eliminating the opportunity for an adequate
<br />review of all such changes, the Board has determined that the statutory time limits referenced above
<br />do not begin to run until all changes to the application have been submitted and the application is in
<br />final form. An applicant that submits a complete application at the outset will be entitled to a decision
<br />within the statutory timeframe, calculated from the date of submittal of the application". It is clear
<br />from information contained in the Division's Orion Pit file, in particular the letters from the Division to
<br />the applicant dated November 1, 1994, December 13, 1994, January 3, 1995, May 14, 1997, and
<br />June 4, 1997, that the application was not complete or in its final form until June 3, 1997. As such,
<br />the statutory review period could not begin until the application had been deemed complete on June
<br />3, 1997.
<br />With respect to Rule 4.7 (31, the Division must reiterate that the bank's documentation is not limited
<br />by the Rule to be provided "only" with an operator's annual report. The Division's policy that the
<br />bank's documentation needs to be provided with the initial financial warranty instrument submittal is
<br />based on the Office's responsibility as set forth in the Rules to ensure that financial warrantors such
<br />00233
<br />3
<br />
|