My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL33107
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL33107
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:55:16 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:31:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2001001
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
7/2/2001
Doc Name
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. ,Clan!}n Bo}nr[on -Line Camp Pil. • <br />Jwie 8, 1001 <br />Page 1 <br />up-drainage. We have assembled a summary of the Division's rationale concerning the flooding issue and <br />attached it to this correspondence for your convenience and review. <br />The test that an applicant must pass for the Division to make an approval recommendation and the Board <br />to approve an application, where an objection is received, is to minimally satisfy the requirements of the <br />Act and Rules. If an applicant can demonstrate that the application so meets the requirements of the Act <br />and Rules, the Division must recommend approval of the application. If the Board comes to the same <br />conclusion during the public hearing process, the Board must approve the application. In the Line Camp <br />Pit case, the Board made the finding that the Applicant did minimally meet the requirements of the Act, <br />Rules and Regulations, otherwise they would have denied the application. <br />You also indicated that you felt the hearing process was not fair to the objecting parties, since there was <br />no provision in the Order allowing the objecting parties to respond to the Division's final statements. <br />Please be aware that one of the reasons the pre-hearing order is sent to all parties prior to the hearing is <br />so the parties have an opportunity to request that the Board modify the Order, prior to the hearing. <br />The Board, as the first order of business in these types of heazings, seeks input on the Order from all <br />parties prior to making a motion for adoption. Hearing no objection in the case of the.Line Camp Pit <br />application, the Board adopted the pre-hearing Order. Also, as you recall, the Board did allow you to <br />make follow-up comments, outside of the structure of the adopted Order. As a final note, the Attorney <br />General's Oflice, not the Division or the Mined Land Reclamation Board, is responsible for preparation <br />of the draft pre-heazing Order. <br />Thank your for your concern in this matter. <br />Sincerely, <br />Michael B. <br />Director <br />A((achmenL~ DMG'sSummaryAnalysisjorRecommendationofApproval <br />cc: Governor Owens <br />Greg Watcher, DNR Executive Director <br />Tim Pollard, DNR Assistant Deputy Director <br />Bruce Humphries, DMG <br />Wally Erickson, DMG <br />Mark Held, AGO <br />Cheryl Linden, AGO <br />MLRB <br />gawlLoynlon response6-8-01 mbl <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.