Laserfiche WebLink
A. <br />B. <br />Granting of Party Status -King Mountain will accept the determination of <br />the pre-hearing conference officer and the CMLRB <br />Permit Application Should be Denied: <br />1. The CMLRB Dces Not Have Jurisdiction -King Mountain disagrees <br />with this assertion. However, we will leave the determination to the <br />Attorney General's Office and to the Board's Attorney, Tyson Powell, in <br />particular. <br />2. King Mountains' Failure to Comply With the Financial Warranty <br />Requirement Raises Concerns About Its Financial Viability - It is our <br />firm belief that this issue is a total "Red Herring° as King Mountain's only <br />failure was a mistake with the original Letter of Credit and that mistake <br />was corrected and the finandal wam3nty was submitted in proper format <br />for the entire warranty amount. King Mountain's finandal viability is not in <br />question here. <br />_ 3.. Significant Adverse Impacts - It should be noted that during the __ <br />applicati'ori-process, the posting and publication process, the adeequacy <br />reviews and the responses to adequacy reviews, all issues now raised <br />were covered thoroughly by the applipnt and the DMG staff with <br />appropriate referrals to and discussions with other state agendas. The <br />public had the opportunity to comment and object at that time although no <br />one did. We wilt list the issues now raised and our response: <br />a. Wildlife Concerns - It is our position that during the original <br />process of referral and review that all of the issues now raised <br />were covered thoroughly and adequately through intensive work <br />with the referral agendas on the part of the applicant and the <br />DMG staff. King Mountain representatives worked with DOW <br />personnel extensively to prepare a mitigation plan acceptable to <br />both DOW and the DMG. In fact, the reclamation plan seed mixes <br />were modified extensively during that process to include all of the <br />DOW s concerns for reclamation to a Sage Grouse friendly habitat <br />improvement for the property. King Mountain also deleted <br />signficant portions of the property from mining activities limiting <br />staged mining on the approximate 320 acres to approximately 184 <br />acres to be mined in small increments. The referral and review <br />process worked. However, the current opponents object to that <br />outcome. After a thorough reading of their concerns, vae find that <br />' no new evidence is presented that would justify a re-opening of <br />this case. Everything that was said in the current objection letters <br />is simply a reiteration of issues raised during the original process. <br />b. Conservation and Procertv Values -These objections are <br />outside of the scope of the DMG and CMLRB Rules and <br />Regulations and therefore outside of their regulatory authority. <br />c. Transportation and Safety Concerns -Haul traffic and safety <br />concerns are outside of the scope of the DMG and CMLRB Rules <br />and Regulations and therefore outside of their regulatory authority. <br />d. Cattle Movement -Same comment as b. and c. above. <br />e. Aesthetic and Recreational Concerns -Same comment as b., <br />c., and d. above. <br />f. Water Issues -The Rules and Regulations cover hydrologic <br />balance and the application was referred to the appropriate <br />agencies including the Stale Water Engineer's Office. During the <br />2 <br />