From:	MCALLISTER Larry
Sent:	Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:33 PM
To:	JOHNDOHL Judy
Cc:	MCALLISTER Larry
Subject:	RE: DEQ response to Coburg

Judy
I have now listened to the 5 minute audio of Mr. O’Connor’s presentation at the EQC meeting on 8/21/09.  He clearly indicated that he was commenting in support of the Coburg petition and asked the Commission to support the petition.  Although his comment described his frustration with SRF staff regarding ARRA funding, his comments never refer to the permanent rulemaking that was open for public comment at that time.  He did not comment on the rulemaking.

Larry

_____________________________________________
From: JOHNDOHL Judy 
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 4:12 PM
To: MCALLISTER Larry
Subject: RE: DEQ response to Coburg

Thanks Larry –
I will fill in the response and send back to you for the rulemaking package.
Regarding Coquille, I don’t believe there is actually anything we need to write up since Terrance was commenting on the petition itself and not the permanent rulemaking. If he did comment on the rulemaking, then we should include his comments as well. 

_____________________________________________
From: MCALLISTER Larry 
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:56 PM
To: JOHNDOHL Judy
Subject: DEQ response to Coburg

Judy
I recall you offering to write up a response to Milo’s comments regarding the proposed Permanent CWSRF rules?  

As you know, Milo commented on 8/21 during the public forum at the Newport EQC meeting.  I listened to the tape and feel my write-up of his comments is accurate.   Please see comment #3 in the attached document.

I am checking on comments by Terrance O’Connor from Coquille regarding the Coburg petition.

Larry

 << File: AttachBPublicCommentResponseSummary.docx >>