PERMFILE136825 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-6- • discussion with some other divisions in that regard, and I think I would just like to summarize that briefly so that it's -- the Board understands what it is that I have presented to people and the Board may want to make comment on that with regard to what I have to say. I guess that the basic paint is that we have made it as clear as we possibly could to the public and to the objectors that the Mined Land Reclamation Board's and the Division's responsibility under the Mined Land Reclamation Act is independent of other agencies. That it is not a process upon which we go in sequence at this point with regard to decisions made by other agencies or other governments. In particular, in this case, is that any local planning that would occur or should occur in regards to this operation or any other project ins not a consideration of the Mined Land Reclamation Board, that is a separate process. Also, there have been questions raised about the obligation to meet the requirements of state Water Law and State Engineer. And again, we have made it clear to the objectors, and to the public, that the MineA Land Reclamation Board's and Division's responsibility is independent of that. In • other words, we pursue whether the Company can comply with the Mined Land Reclamation Act and we're not concerned with regard to whether the Company has met the requirements of the State Engineer at this point, for example. So those are independent processes and what we have advised the parties at this point is that the Board's responsibility is to make a determination as to whether this permit application meets the requirements of the Mined Land Reclamation Act, and those requirements are essentially technical requirements with respect to being able to protect the environment during the mining operation and being able to demonstrate or demonstrating during the permit application process that they can reclaim the land as required by the law. That is where we are to date. There are some things that have transpired over the last month, like I said, with respect to technical issues, and I'm going to ask Steve to refer to those. There were four outstanding issues at the last meeting. One of them had to do with the need fora rock toe buttress to provide stability to a highwall. A second issue had to do with assessing the need for a slurry wall to separate the alluvium of the Rito Seco from the pit. The • third issue had to do with the amount of the reclamation bond and the fourth issue had to do with an emergency response plan with regard to this operation.