Laserfiche WebLink
R: 0178 -0219, 3593 -5112 (WFC response to adequacy letter 4); R: 0231-0270,5113-5638 (WFC <br />response to adequacy letter 5). WFC proposed numerous changes to resolve the objections and <br />concerns raised by the Division, NRCS, and the public. Id. <br />The Division thoroughly reviewed WFC's PR -6 application and adequacy responses to <br />ensure PR -6, as approved, would comply with the Act and Rules and was responsive to the <br />relevant concerns expressed by the public and specifically the Plaintiffs. As a result of the <br />detailed review process, the Division issued its proposed decision to approve PR -6 on October 1, <br />2010. R: 7809 -7874. <br />C. The Board's Affirmance of PR -6's Proposed Approval <br />In response to the Division's proposed approval, Plaintiffs submitted objection letters <br />requesting a formal Board hearing. R: 7435; 7437. At a special Board meeting convened on <br />October 28, 2010, the Board ordered a pre- hearing conference be held for the parties to identify <br />objections and issues appropriate for Board consideration. R: 8452 -8460. The November 3, <br />2010 pre- hearing conference resulted in a Proposed Hearing Order identifying the Plaintiffs' four <br />objections to be heard by the Board and requiring the exchange of witness lists and exhibits by <br />November 8, 2010. R: 7795 -7800. This deadline was later extended to November 10, 2010 <br />based upon Plaintiffs' request. R: 8467 -8469. <br />On November 17, 2010 the Board conducted a lengthy administrative, de novo hearing. <br />The Board received extensive written materials and exhibits from all parties for review before <br />the hearing. R: 7795 -7974; 8011 -8444. The Board heard detailed scientific and technical <br />testimony from the Division's specialists, Marcia Talvitie and Sandy Brown, and WFC's <br />technical consultant Greg Lewicki. R: 7283 -7433. Mr. Morgan and Ms. Turner offered <br />9 <br />