Laserfiche WebLink
7o . cD4ev M-1g77-3oo <br />/6 /Uav zo?p <br />BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />THE DIVISION OF RECLAMATION MINING AND SAFETY'S RESPONSE TO <br />COTTER CORPORATION'S NOVEMBER 1 5 X010 REPLY REGARDING THE <br />DIVISION'S SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 NOTICE OF REASON TO BELIEVE A <br />VIOLATION EXISTS CONCERNING COTTER'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH <br />THE BOARD'S AUGUST 11, 2010 ORDER IN CONJUNCTION WITH <br />COTTER'S PERMIT NO. M-1977-300 REGARDING THE SCHWARTZWALDER <br />MINE <br />The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ("Division" or "DRMS") <br />hereby responds as follows to Cotter Corporation's ("Cotter") November 15, 2010, <br />Reply regarding the Division's September 16, 2010, Notice of Reason to Believe a <br />Violation Exists regarding Cotter's failure to comply with the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board's ("Board") August 11, 2010 Order regarding Permit No. M- <br />1977-300 for Cotter's Schwartzwalder Mine. <br />1. On November 15, 2010, two days before the hearing scheduled in this matter, <br />Cotter filed a Reply to the Division's Response concerning the September 16th Notice <br />of Reason to Believe a Violation Exists and also offered as evidence twelve <br />documents that do not pertain to the issue before the Board. The Division objects to <br />both Cotter's Reply and to its proposed evidence. <br />First, Cotter's Reply and its purported evidence are untimely and should be stricken. <br />The Division filed a Response to Cotter's Answer in this matter on October 28, 2010. <br />Cotter's November 15, 20 Reply to the Division's Response and its purported <br />evidence come over two weeks after the Division filed its Response and two days <br />before the Board hearing. Therefore, they are untimely and the Board should not <br />consider them. <br />Second, Cotter's purported evidence is irrelevant to the issue pending before the <br />Board. The Division's September 16`' Notice alleges that Cotter has violated § 34- <br />32-124. C.R.S. and 2 CCR 407-1, Rule 3.3.2 for failure to comply with the Board's <br />August 11, 2010 Order. Thus, the only issue before the Board is whether Cotter has <br />failed to comply with the August 1 It" Board Order. Cotter's proposed evidence <br />relates to matters the Board has already resolved, specifically whether Cotter has <br />committed violations and what corrective actions are necessary and appropriate to <br />address those violations. Accordingly, the Division objects to Cotter's proposed <br />evidence and requests that the Board not admit Cotter's offered documents into <br />evidence. See 24-4-105(4), C.R.S. and 2 CCR 407-1. Rule 2.8.1(2).