Laserfiche WebLink
MLRB Presentation Form • • Page 6 <br />File No. M-2001-001 <br />10. Will the operation create adverse impacts to the hydrologic balance, including wetlands and <br />flood plain issues? <br />See staff response under issues 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 of DMG's Rationale for Approval <br />Recommendation. <br />This issue was raised in objector letter numbers 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, <br />16, 17, 18 and 20. <br />11. Should Temporary Cessation be prohibited at this site? <br />See staff response under issue 7 of DMG's Rationale for Approval Recommendation. <br />This issue was raised in objector letter number 2, <br />12. Has the staff been biased in its review of the application? <br />See staff response under issues 1, 4, 5, 32 and 41 of DMG's Rationale for Approval <br />Recommendation. <br />This issue was raised in objector letter numbers 1, 2, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 18. <br />13. Do the Division and the Board have broad police powers such that they are required to <br />address each and every objection to the application? <br />See staff response under issue 1 of DMG's Rationale for Approval Recommendation. <br />This issue was raised in objector letter numbers 15 and 16. <br />14. Have recent changes to federal regulations preempted the Board's jurisdiction? <br />See staff response under issues 2 and 3 of DMG's Rationale for Approval Recommendation. See <br />the attached correspondence from US Army Corps of Engineers, dated April 4, 2001. <br />This issue was raised in objector letter number 15. <br />15. Should this operation be considered a Designated Mining Operation (DMOI? <br />See staff response under issue 12 of DMG's Rationale for Approval Recommendation. <br />This issue was raised in objector letter numbers 7, 9, 15 and 18. <br />Attachment: Correspondence from DOW, dated 1 1 /8/00, and COE, dated 414/01. <br />