Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />i <br />idr. Larry Reschke -2- March 2, 1983 <br />Pursuant to Rule 2.07.G(2)(d)(iv), the applicant must submit proof that <br />necessary approvals have been obtained from "the authority with <br />jurisdiction over the public road" (i.e. the City of Uelta),for <br />operations within lU0 feet of a public road. Further, prior to permit <br />issuance the Division will provide the opportunity for a public hearing <br />for the purpose of deter~nininy whether the interests of the public and <br />affected landowners will be protected. <br />Finally, the permit application needs to be consolidated into one <br />cohesive document. The numerous revisions, addendwns and replacement <br />payes and maps which nave been submitted since the original application <br />submittal in February of 19£il need to be incorporated, in logical <br />sequence, into the application. <br />The proposed permit area has been significantly expanded on certain maps <br />in recent submittals, but not on others. All maps should clearly <br />indicate both the originally proposed and the revised permit area <br />boundaries. The proposed ac re aye change should be reflected in the <br />application form. <br />Mine plan projections are presented only throuyh 1984 for the No. 1 mine <br />and 1985 for the No. 2 mine. As a result, the requested four-year permit <br />term cannot be approved. <br />I suggest that we schedule a meeting to discuss the above issues and the <br />Draft Findinys after you have had a chance to review our comments. <br />Sincerely, <br />Uan Mathews <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />UM/ep <br />Doc. No. 1211 <br />