My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE33767
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE33767
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:04 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:54:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980149
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
10/23/1980
Doc Name
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF MLRB MEETING REGARDING WELD CNTY DEPT OF ENGINEERING FN 80-149
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
during a specific period of time. laid reclamation of that should perhaps <br />be considered Chen at the next board meeting, if as you say, the mine <br />permit is not feasible after this date. Then a reclamation plan should <br />be considered for the area at the next board meeting. <br />TOM DAVID: It is my understanding that, with our contact with the staff, and we were <br />assured that w2 have everything before the board necessary to consider <br />this today. <br />BRAD JANES: Dick Lefler was in the office yesterday, looking at this material, and <br />the things that I have stated here are the things that I stated to him. <br />Things that, I did not get a full response to my adequacy. <br />WAYNE SMITH: Could I say something, I am Wayne Smith, County Engineer, we submitted <br />this application I think about the 1st of July. We have been working <br />with the staff now, every week since that time. We got a letter from <br />the staff last week asking us to answer certain questions. We worked <br />' all weekend trying to get those answers back in here by mid-week. We <br />~ ~ felt that we answered all the questions fully and completely and that <br /> <br />v; <br />'. ; ~ <br />, the few items remaining for which we didn't have complete answers <br />i <br />' <br />" would be considered not to (inaudible) <br />that we would be able <br />_ <br />., , <br />cl <br /> to go through the permit process and provide this information later. <br />~ ~ <br />(~ <br />,: <br />'-" Some of them are a little different, information for SCS, things that <br />`~ <br />-~:: have been in the past held as insignificant. So, we have gone through <br />~.. = this in good faith up until now and we had this scheduled to September <br />,~ <br />~' <br /> and asked for continuance until this month, to allow a little more time <br />for complete dispursal of the information to the state agencies. So we <br />feel that we have really acted in good faith all along, and it is very <br />important to us to try to get an adequacy (inaudible) this month. <br />JOHN WARD: Is this the first tiioe, you say that you are bearing some of the conditions <br />that the staff has........ <br />WAYNE SMITH: I'm saying that I have been in almost daily contact with the staff the <br />last week, and we discussed some of these conditions, we got almost <br />everything resolved, that I can think of, there are a few things, like the <br />seed mixture I felt was a minor matter as far as the actual seed mixture <br />and I don't know what your procedures oci that, we felt that that was not <br />a major issue, the major issue was the impact of the 100 year flood on the <br />adjacent property, mining sequence, location of screening, or where they <br />would be or wouldn't be. We have worked with all these major issues and got <br />them all resolved and these things are the minor issues, which we could <br />hopefully supply after the fact and this is critically important for us to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.