My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1992-07-21_REVISION - M1988112
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1988112
>
1992-07-21_REVISION - M1988112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2021 7:32:26 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:34:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/21/1992
Doc Name
MINUTES MLRB
Type & Sequence
AM1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Minutes, July 22-24, 1992 <br />The Board discussed a desire to <br />Renner suggested this trip be <br />Meeting. T'ne Board decided that <br />be held in Glenwood Springs <br />Mid-Continent mine site. <br />Inactive Mines <br />t i ~ <br />DRAFT <br />Subject To Board Approval <br />visit the Mid-Continent mine site. Mr. <br />planned for the September 1992 Board <br />the September 1992 Board Meeting would <br />and would include a tour of the <br />~ ~ ~ <br />- Landowner Cost-sharing - <br />- Legal Issues for Protection of Closures/Landowner Responsibility <br />Regarding landowner cost-sharing, Idr. Bucknam said landowners are not <br />providing much cash for closures, but that some of them make materials <br />available for the Division's contractors, etc. He said contributions <br />of inkind services have been increased. Mr. Bucknam said some <br />individual landowners have come forward and asked the Division for <br />guidance when pursuing closures on their property, and this has been <br />provided. <br />The ownership of closures was discussed briefly. Mr. Bucknam said that <br />during discussions with Mr. Johnson, it was determined that if the <br />closures are the property of the State, the State would retain the <br />responsibility for their maintenance. He said a determination has not <br />been made regarding the State's ownership of these closures. Mr. <br />Bucknam said he would prefer a situation where the landowners assumed <br />responsibility for the closures once completed. <br />The issue of proposing legislation that would require landowners to <br />allow an operator access to a property to perform reclamation was <br />discussed. Mr. Humphries said the constitutionality of requiring a <br />landowner to allow an operator on his property to conduct reclamation <br />is not yet known. He said this problem has also arisen in relation to <br />land owned by federal agencies. Board Member Cooley suggested that the <br />Division require operator's applying for new permits to provide some <br />form of written permission 1'or entering the land to perform <br />reclamation. The operator's inclusion of this permission in the lease <br />agreement was discussed. It was noted that changes in the language of <br />the Act would be needed to establish this procedure. <br />Procedural Issues <br />Board Member Stewart initiated a discussion regarding whether the Board <br />has any control over the form of bonds accepted by the Division. Mr. <br />Renner said the Division has been experiencing problems when it comes <br />to self-bonding or collateral bonding, and that rule-making would be <br />pursued in order to resolve these problems. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.