Laserfiche WebLink
levels at the proposed mining site constituted new information that merited <br />reconsideration by this Board under Rule 2.9.1(2). See DMG Response at 1-2 and <br />Attachment 1 thereto. <br />At the January 2003 hearing, the Board decided to hear oral argument on the <br />Petition without deciding at that time whether to substantively review the Petition. Oral <br />argument has been set for the Board's March 2004 hearing for the Board to determine <br />first whether Haldorson's Petition meets the standard set forth in Rule 2.9.1(2) to <br />reconsider its October 2003 decision regarding Haldorson's application. The Board also <br />decided that if it determines that Haldorson has met the threshold standard for the Board <br />to reconsider its October 2003 decision under Rule 2.9.1(2), it will then further decide <br />whether to grant Haldorson's requested relief or otherwise modify the Board's October <br />2003 decision. See letter from Tyson Powell, the Board's Attorney to Thomas Smith and <br />Susan McTntosh dated January 22, 2004. <br />HALDORSON'S PETITION AND SUPPLEMENT MEETS THE STANDARD <br />FOR BOARD RECONSIDERATION IN RULE 2.9.1(21 AND HALDORSON'S <br />REQUESTED MODIFICATION SHOULD BE GRANTED BY THE BOARD, <br />PERHAPS WITH AN ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY <br />After additional consideration and review of Haldorson's "Supplement to Petition <br />for Reconsideration" (Supplement), DMG has determined that Haldorson's Petition <br />meets the standard established by the Board in Rule 2.9.1(2) for reconsideration and, <br />further, that Haldorson's requested modification in the Board's October 2003 decision <br />regarding Stipulation number 2 to be attached to Haldorson's permit should be approved <br />by the Board, perhaps with a contingency that would require Haldorson to cease mining <br />