Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• Maneotis Sheep Company as soon as we receive it. Because this <br />is a signed agreement, we can legally sue for Breach of <br />Contract if we do not receive the consent form. We do not <br />want to resort to this, but may if we are forced to, <br />especially since the other two parties have given their <br />consent to retain a portion of the haul road. We are asking <br />the Division for their approval of the haul road to be <br />retained based on the Maneotis consent form being in the <br />permit application package prior to the final decision. <br />Also enclosed are two copies of letters received from the <br />Bureau of Land Management which are to be included in Appendix <br />22-2. The March 27, 1995 letter states that any comments <br />concerning surface owner review and consent will be forwarded <br />directly to CDMG. The May 12, 1995 letter says no conflicts <br />between postmining land uses and existing BLM land management <br />plans and policies exist, and SCC has addressed the BLM's <br />concerns under this heading. It concludes by recommending the <br />approval of the Yoast Mine permit application package. <br />~ 36. SCC still preparing response. <br />~ 38- SCC still preparing response. <br />40. <br />X43. SCC still preparing response. <br />• 44. Exhibits 13-10.1 and 13-10.2 have been revised to show the <br />approximate location of where riprap will be placed to divert <br />runoff away from the base of the road fill at two different <br />drainage locations. <br />X45. SCC still preparing response. <br />[x..46. CDMG still reviewing. <br />Tab 15 <br />~'49. No response required from SCC. <br />Tab 16 <br />51. SCC will provide the water rights documentation once approval <br />is received. <br />53. CDMG still reviewing, <br />Tab 17 <br />058. SCC has modified Table 17-22 (now Table 7-21) as requested. <br />(This table was already modified during the first round of <br />revisions, but for some reason, was not included). <br />3 <br />