My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-05-03_PERMIT FILE - M2005067
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2005067
>
2006-05-03_PERMIT FILE - M2005067
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:16:25 PM
Creation date
8/30/2011 7:22:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2005067
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
5/3/2006
Doc Name
File Notes
From
DMG
To
File
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
F')e <br />This matter is being brought before the Board for consideratio • .. • • iolation for <br />failure to comply with the conditions of a Board Order for Fi S 34- <br />32.5 -124). Specifically, the board order required the Sikes to e • a 110c reclamation <br />permit by March 31, 2006. (see board order). <br />The 1 l Oc application was submitted on February 28, 2006, however, it was not called <br />complete until March 8, 2006 with a final decision date of April 7, 2006. Adequacy <br />comments sent out on April 4, 2006 and the applicant requested an extension until April <br />14, 2006, which is the date that the application was approved. The permit was issued on <br />May 3, 2006. <br />The board order states that the civil penalty shall be 41,566.40 with all but 566.40 <br />suspended if the prescribed corrective actions were completed by March 31, 2006. <br />Obviously this did not occur, however, the applicant was diligent in pursuing this permit <br />application and furthermore, they applied for a received approval for another 110c <br />application in the same general vicinity. It would have been better if the applicant would <br />have requested an extension of the original board order, however, it will be staff's <br />recommendation that the original board order be amended to extend the compliance date <br />or a new board order be issued with a new compliance date. Also, the applicant did post <br />an interim bond of $6000.00 and pay their civil penalty in a timely manner. <br />gcc-c <br />� m <br />Dec <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.