Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ ' 20 <br /> <br /> 1 Costilla County Committee on Environmental Soundness, <br />' 2 that we were in receipt of the application, and <br /> 3 noticed him as to when the close of the public <br />' 4 comment period was. <br /> 5 On the 27th of November we received <br />' <br /> 6 comments from the Division of Wildlife, as required <br />' 7 by the Mined Land Reclamation Act, and detailed <br /> e their concerns, which essentially consisted of <br /> 9 whether fencing would or would not be provided <br /> l0 around any ponds which contain potentially toxic <br />' , <br /> 11 materials and what waterfowl mitigation measures <br />' 12 were proposed by the company. <br /> 13 During the period December 1 through <br />' 14 December 1 3, we received approximately 21 letters of <br /> 15 objection to the amendment. These letters of <br />' 16 objection raised various issues, which varied from <br /> 17 socioecono mic impacts to Costilla County and <br />' i i <br /> 18 San Lu <br />s, as well as techn <br />cal concerns about the <br />' 19 amendment application. <br /> 20 We have forwarded at various times, upon <br />' 21 receipt of these letters, to both the company and to <br /> 22 the Board, copies of each of these letters of <br /> 23 b <br />ti <br /> o <br />jec <br />on. <br />' 24 At the December 14, 1989, Board meeting, <br /> 25 the Board heard a request for formal public hearing <br />AGREN, BLANDO & BILLINGS <br />r <br />