Laserfiche WebLink
collective concerns, lodged numerous complaints. The Division held a public informal <br />conference in Nucla, Colorado on February 18, 2010. Forty individuals, including <br />representatives from NRCS, OSM, WFC, and the Division, attended the informal conference. <br />The Division received numerous additional comment letters from Ms. Turner during the second <br />20 -day public comment period that followed the informal conference. Although voluminous, <br />Ms. Turner's letters merely re- stated the same issues or raised comments wholly unrelated to PR- <br />6, focusing, instead, on previous Division permitting activities. <br />In addition to objection letters, the Division also received numerous letters supporting the <br />proposed approval of PR -6 submitted by members of the community, including a letter of <br />support from the town of Nucla. R: 6426. <br />2. The Division's Technical Review of PR -6 <br />The Division's technical review of the PR -6 application was exhaustive and thorough. <br />Over the course of the 12 -month technical review of PR -6, the Division issued five <br />comprehensive, technical adequacy letters requiring significant changes to the PR -6 application. <br />See R: 6054 -6080 (adequacy letter 1); R: 6081 -6087 (adequacy letter 2); R: 6092 -6125 <br />(adequacy letter 3); R: 6126 -6125 (adequacy letter 4); R: 6159- 6185(adequacy letter 5). WFC <br />responded by submitting thousands of pages of detailed technical information, revised pages to <br />the PR -6 application, and revised plans and maps. R: 0022 -0052, 0273 -1317 (WFC response to <br />adequacy letters 1 & 2); R: 0062 -0081, 1597 -3319 (WFC response to adequacy letter 3); <br />° Rule 2.07.4 requires the Division to review permit revision applications to determine whether <br />the application is technically adequate. If inadequate, the Division sends the applicant an <br />"adequacy letter" identifying technical inadequacies that need to be sufficiently addressed. <br />