PUB00147 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Cathy Carlson-EP A should able to distinguish. They have experience with these issues. They are not insurmountable problems. Steve Quarles-He is willing to work on it. Paul Frohardt- You could also address this concern in criteria for issuance of a permit, rather than in a definition. Brent Fewell-need to add: "Had no direct role in the creation of the historic mine residue" in the definition. Velma Smith-Proposed replacing F(iii) with "... or were left in inactive reclamation status prior to the CWA enactment date (1977)." We can debate the date, but the point is to be sure that the term "historic" is not a moving target. The bill needs to draw a clear line. Kathy Bendetto- The problem is bankruptcy. Paul Frohardt-will suggest a practical cut-off date for how to draw the line. Leslie Torrence (BLM}-Going back to the date, maybe need to include date, but also allow some flexibility in certain cases around that date. Federal Lands Jeff Goodman-The Forest Service has thousands of abandoned mines. To the degree there are incentives for others to help FS clean up the sites is great. Their inventory will take them 100s of years to get through. Jeff believes the strawman is good from FS perspective: 1) it allows cleanups on federal lands by Good Samaritans; and 2) requires the Federal land manager to consent to the project. Brent Fewell--one option: under E(I), change "or" to "and." Michael Gianotto-need to delete F(iv). Cathy Carlson-their position is that the feds are the ultimate deep pockets. Joe Pizarchik-Innocent landowner's ok to include. Feds should be Good Sam. Their pocket is my pocket! Joe will send language from the P A program. Velma Smith-prospective purchaser agreement? Don't want to see a windfall to the landowner from the cleanup. Need to stick to a statutory definition. Jeff Goodman-FS is not looking to be a Good Sam. What they really need to clean up sites is money! 5