GENERAL32911 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f. ; ,~ J ruling very well, and we think you will too when you listen to the conference tape. The fact that we have an opportunity, much later in time, to object to the Division's proposed decision is irrelevant. lJe are entitled to all our rights and we want to submit important information on the proposed application regard- ing waste rock handling, reclamation, hydrologic protection, loadouts, right to enter, lands to be affected, and other major aspects of the proposed mining operation. Not only would this information help insure that the Division's adequacy analysis and proposed decision fully address our concerns, but it would also help the Division obtain more comprehensive information. Regarding the site visit, Mr. Banta's letter tells an incom- plete and untrue story: # In the last paragraph of page 4 and first two paragraphs of page S, among the untrue statements made by h1r. Banta are those regarding: The date of the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to the County Commissioners - the Commission does not make decisions, only the elected County Commissioners do; Mr. Aiatthies' statements on the Rifle loadout - he did not disclose the new location; the statements of Division staff about visiting any loadout site; and Mr. McKennis' statements at the informal conference. # It is true that Mr. McKennis waived the 10-day requirement but he did so under duress. Mr. Crick told him that if he did not do so, no site visit would be held because it would not fit in with the Division's schedule. We would welcome an opportunity to go through these para- graphs sentence by sentence with you or your staff and we are willing to give statements under oath on what actually took place. On page G in the second paragraph, Mr. Banta states that the Rifle loadout will "need to be reviewed through a separate appli- cation." This piecemeal approach contradicts the rules of the Division and Office that require applicants to show the lands to be affected during the five-year permit term and to identify the lands contemplated to be affected over the life of the mine. Our petition discusses these issues at length, but we will say it again: New Castle has filed public documents showing that it intends to construct and use loadouts during the first 5-year permit term at both the Rifle site (temporary) and the Riverbend site (permanent). The Division must properly address this. Co!.iprehensive, up-front mine planning is a basic premise of S:~CP.A. :'e are shocked that the Division persists in ignoring its responsibility to require such a plan from New Castle. Apparent- ly, Mr. Banta would have us believe that the Division's job is merely to review and analyze the details of an applicant's pro- posal and to passively accept an applicant's ill-conceived no- tions that give only part of the story. [Je don't swallow that line and urge that you not. 2