My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1997-08-25_REVISION - M1981302
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981302
>
1997-08-25_REVISION - M1981302
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2022 4:31:19 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:44:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981302
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/25/1997
Doc Name
AGENDA ITEM 4 ON TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR 8/27/1997 MLRB MEETING IN GLENWOOD SPRINGS DISCU
From
BOULDER CNTY
To
MLRB
Type & Sequence
TR6
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.
/
3
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
flood-control impacts which has already been made part of the <br /> record in this year's proceedings on Permit No. M-81-302. This <br /> information includes the information submitted as part of the <br /> record in the Deepe Pit amendment application, AM-002 (approved <br /> by the MLRB on June 25, 1997) , and in the appeal on the DMG's <br /> decision to treat the berm alterations as a technical revision <br /> (decided by the MLRB on July 23, 1997) . <br /> Finally, we encourage the MLRB and the DMG to consult with <br /> the Attorney General's Office regarding the scope of the <br /> MLRB's/DMG's authority to evaluate flood control impacts. At the <br /> July 23 MLRB hearing, the Board members seemed unclear regarding <br /> the scope of their authority in this area, and requested legal <br /> advice. It was not evident whether the Board believed that the <br /> "hydrologic balance" language of the applicable reclamation <br /> standards did not include flood control, or whether the Board <br /> believed that it might be preempted by other authorities, such as <br /> FEMA's or CWCB's. From the legal standpoint, preemption should <br /> never be assumed, but specifically researched with respect to <br /> each competing statutory authority. It could be, for example, <br /> that FEMA has certain flood mapping and flood insurance <br /> responsibilities which do not preempt MLRB's/DMG's authority in <br /> this area. Because the TR flood issues associated with the berm <br /> are now squarely before the DMG staff, and may again come before <br /> the MLRB following a staff decision on the TR, legal advice from <br /> the Attorney General's office is necessary at this point. <br /> Due to the time commitment involved in traveling to Glenwood <br /> Springs and the procedural nature of the August 27 Deeps Pit <br /> agenda item, the County does not plan to send a staff <br /> representative to this hearing. We therefore request that you <br /> consider these comments as part of your formal deliberation on <br /> this item on August 27. <br /> Thank you for your continuing attention to the county's <br /> concerns with this matter. <br /> Sincerely yours, <br /> BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS <br /> OF THE COUNTY OF BOULDER <br /> ja1dK. Stew rt, Chair Men c air <br /> Paul D. Danish, Commissioner <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.