My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1997-08-27_REVISION - M1981302
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981302
>
1997-08-27_REVISION - M1981302
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2022 4:31:19 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:44:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981302
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/27/1997
Doc Name
STAFF PRESENTATION BY TOM GILLIS M-97-020
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.
/
10
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
Revised: 07/30/97 • Minutes -July 23, 1997 • Page 18 <br /> timing would be regarding TR versus amendment. Mr. Humphries responded that a TR for a 112 <br /> Application is a 30 day process with an approval or denial coming before the Board. An <br /> amendment, it is the same as a Permit application which is a 90 day process assuming that there are <br /> no adequacy issues of concern and if there is an objection there is a 120 day process which could <br /> continue up to a year, depending upon what issues come up and how they are addressed. On this <br /> TR, the operator waived their right to decision within 30 days because they were waiting for some <br /> information on some studies. <br /> Mr. Brown asked that the Permit file become part of the record. Ms. Harrison responded that this is <br /> a controversial issue and the Board does not have all the information. She emphasized that the <br /> Board is a public body and that public input is what it is all about. Ms. Green reminded Ms. <br /> Harrison that Staff gave testimony that even if a TR is approved, there is an opportunity for people <br /> to object to the approval, at which point a Hearing is triggered. Ms. Green went on to state that the <br /> Board has jurisdiction to determine whether the changes in the berm compile with the Mined Land <br /> Reclamation Act, but they don't have jurisdiction whether or not the berm affects flood plains. Ms. <br /> Andrews asked for permission to speak and stated that she didn't mean to give the impression that <br /> the County was forum shopping, but wanted to say that the County does feel that the Board has <br /> jurisdiction over the berm as a reclamation feature. The County also looked at the language in the <br /> organic statute where it ensures that the proposed reclamation plans minimizes adverse impacts on <br /> the hydrological balance,but that is something that does influence the flood control impact. <br /> Mr. Cattany asked Western Mobile how they would stand to gain or loose if the increment is not <br /> added to the berm. Mr. Schwarz stated that it doesn't make a difference to them one way or <br /> another, they submitted the TR by request of the landowner who needs to add the material so that <br /> they can obtain the FEMA Certification that they need. Mr. Humphries noted that what the Board <br /> needed to look at is would the modifications negatively impact someone else. Mr. Long asked Ms. <br /> Harrison where FEMA stands on this issue and if they had any letters of documentation. Ms. <br /> Harrison responded that issue is still cloudy. Mr. Cattany asked Mr. Brown what the time frame <br /> would be, in the AG Office's opinion, whether or not a recommendation from FEMA for the <br /> location, the quality and the quantity for the berm, if they stipulated it would override any decision <br /> made by the Board. Mr. Brown responded that it's a lengthy review process and an informal <br /> opinion may be available by the next Board meeting. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.