|
Timely Neutral Comments:
<br />36. Durango Herald, dated February 18, 2011, received February 18, 2011; and
<br />37. William Karls, dated February 15, 2011, received February 18, 2011.
<br />Late Letters of Objection:
<br />38. Art and Linda Perkins, dated March 7, 2011, received March 10, 2011;
<br />39. Rebecca Barfoot, dated March 3, 2011, received March 10, 2011;
<br />40. Robert Steele, dated March 3, 2011, received March 7, 2011;
<br />41. Randy and Marci Willis, cartoon from Durango Telegraph, received March 4, 2011; and
<br />42. Stephen Filler, cartoon from Durango Telegraph, received March 4, 2011.
<br />NOTE: During the review period, the Division received Party Status Withdrawal Forms
<br />from Rachael Sands and Stephen Filler.
<br />The Division forwarded copies of all comments and objections to the Applicant and scheduled
<br />the application for a hearing before the Board. The Division provided notice of the scheduled
<br />Pre - hearing Conference and Board hearing to all parties and interested persons. Due to the
<br />timely objections, on the decision date the Division would not make a decision on the
<br />application, but rather a recommendation to the Board.
<br />An amendment to CN -01 was filed on April 27, 2011. The amendment re- opened the public
<br />comment period and extended the review period. During this second public comment period
<br />the Division received comments and objections from the following individuals and agencies:
<br />Timely Letters of Support:
<br />43. Gary Gibbons, not dated, received June 2, 2011;
<br />44. Geri Ello, not dated, received June 2, 2011;
<br />Timely Letters of Objection:
<br />45. Art and Linda Perkins, dated May 2, 2011, received May 6, 2011;
<br />Rationale for Conditional Approval of CN -01
<br />May Day Idaho Mine Complex, M- 1981 -185
<br />Timely Agency Comments:
<br />46. Division of Water Resources, dated May 20, 2011, received May 20, 2011; and
<br />47. State Historical Preservation Officer, dated May 6, 2011, received May 12, 2011.
<br />The review period was extended multiple times by request from the Applicant. With each
<br />extension the Division provided notice of the rescheduled Board hearing, Pre - hearing
<br />Conference and staff recommendation date to all parties and interested persons in accordance
<br />with the Act and Rules. During the review period the Division generated six adequacy letters.
<br />The Applicant attempted to address all adequacy issues identified by the Division.
<br />Given the cease and desist orders associated with the five violations, the Applicant's ability to
<br />address the Division's adequacy issues was somewhat restrained. In numerous instances the
<br />Applicant's ability to gain access to the site to obtain technical information necessary to
<br />4
<br />
|