Laserfiche WebLink
mix with the understanding that irrigation would be possible at some future date, if a sufficient <br />quantity of water were made available. <br />The most prolific objector to PR-6 was Ms. JoEllen Turner, representing her own concerns and <br />those of the Morgan family for the prime farmlands. Among many other items, Ms. Turner was <br />generally concerned about: topsoil salvage and replacement, Bench one overburden handling, the <br />proposal for dryland pasture (and potential cropland) reclamation, and the WFC proposal for an <br />irrigated cropland reference area to be located on the Morgan property. <br />In response to Ms. Turner's January 4, 2010 request, the Division hosted an informal conference <br />in Nucla on February 18, 2010. The date, time and location of the informal conference were <br />advertised by the Division in the San Miguel Basin Forum on February 4 and 11, 2010. <br />Personalized notices of the meeting were mailed to each party that had submitted written <br />objections to the revigion or sited n inetition. The meeting vas attended ley forty indivitil-IQ? <br />including a representative from the Norwood office of the NRCS, two representatives from the <br />Office of Surface Mining (Denver office), three representatives from WFC and three <br />representatives of the Division. The meeting was recorded, and several individuals spoke about <br />their concerns with PR-6. The primary concern expressed by the participants was the <br />replacement of irrigated lands with dryland pasture as proposed in the revised reclamation plan. <br />Mr. Mike Morgan questioned whether the change in irrigation would affect the occurrence of <br />spoil springs in the reclamation. Ms. Turner was also concerned about the topsoil management, <br />`Bench 1 overburden' handling and revegetation on the Morgan prime farmlands property. Ms. <br />Turner submitted additional written materials at the conference. <br />In accordance with Rule 2.07.4(2)(a), a second period for public comment commenced for 20 <br />days following the meeting date. This comment period extended through March 10, 2010, <br />during which time the Division received an additional three comment letters from Ms. Turner <br />and one more from Ms. Turner and Mr. Mike Morgan. <br />Subsequent to completion of the March 10, 2010 comment period, Ms. Turner and Mr. Mike <br />Morgan submitted multiple comments as listed in Attachment B. A number of letters supporting <br />the approval of PR-6 were submitted by members of the community which are also included on <br />the list. <br />The PR-6 Review Process <br />The Division issued a Preliminary Adequacy Review (PAR) of the PR-6 application on January <br />22, 2010, 60 days after the submittal of the application as required by Rule 2.07.4(1), but prior to <br />the close of the initial public comment period. The PAR addressed the Division's questions, <br />comments submitted by the NRCS and pertinent items contained in objection letters received to- <br />date. A second, supplemental, adequacy review was issued by the Division on April 4, 2010. <br />This letter incorporated comments brought out at the February 18th informal conference and in <br />the remainder of the public comment period(s). Additional items included the follow-up issues <br />discussed by the Division and WFC on March 16 and 18, 2010. <br />7