My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1997-07-10_REVISION - M1981302
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981302
>
1997-07-10_REVISION - M1981302
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2022 4:31:18 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 5:31:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981302
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/10/1997
Doc Name
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
Type & Sequence
AM2
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.
/
23
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: 07/06/97 Minutes -June 26-27, 1997 Page 39 <br /> Mr. Ernst requested that the five and one half inches be changed to six inches or fertilized to <br /> appropriate standards. Mr. Humphries replied that that is the basic intent of the proposal for the soil <br /> testing to be done. Mr. Cooley asked what they meant by `revision". The Division felt that if they <br /> included it as a revision they would have the opportunity to discuss such things as•publirtrigg <br /> fertilization and how much and also to cover mitigation measures.lcould be determined during the <br /> revision process. Mr. Long stated that the burden was on the operator as far as reclaiming the site <br /> and ensuring that they have a viable stand of vegetation. The liability is in two forms. One is in <br /> the form of a bond release and the other is in the form of potential enforcement actions brought by <br /> the Staff to the Board in the situation where they did not effect their reclamation plan. Mr. Long <br /> also addressed Mr. Binder and stated that the Division and the Board have no jurisdiction over what <br /> future landowners may or may not do with the property. <br /> Ms. Green stated that Boulder Open Space suggested a condition that there be a monitoring program <br /> to show the relationship of the mine reclamation to the habitat and that their position has not been <br /> fully evaluated. She asked if there would be a proposed condition regarding the habitat. Mr. <br /> Humphries stated that there was not anything that the Division could point to in the Statutes or <br /> Regulations that would allow them to put that in as a condition. Mr. Humphries also stated that the <br /> AG's Office told the Division that they believe the Board does have the jurisdiction to impose that <br /> type of authority, but the Division's belief, based on the analysis that they have completed, is that <br /> that study would not do anything over and above what the existing data and analysis now show in <br /> terms of groundwater levels impact, etc. <br /> Mr. Schwarz stated his concerns over the 45 day approval period for the simple reason that things <br /> happen and if that were to slip through the cracks, then they would have a denied amendment. They <br /> will approach the Board with suggestions a little later in the Hearing. He also asked for clarification <br /> on berm height and configuration on stipulation number two. Mr. Schwarz stated that the study of <br /> hydrological conditions relative to stages four and six were conducted off-site and that data was also <br /> included as an exhibit and made available to the opposing parties Exhibit /S-Section /9 and <br /> believes that the studies have occurred previously when the mining was active and pointed out that <br /> the mining is complete. <br /> After a short break, Western Mobile returned before the Board and stated that they have some <br /> language to alter the condition proposed by the Division. Mr. Schwarz suggested the following <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.