Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4 (I) (a)): The Exhibit C nartative states that "Overburden un the pit banks can <br />range up to 3', and may be used in backsluping'". Tht Exhibit D narrative. however. indicates that there will be <br />"little or no removal of any overburden". There is .something of an inconsistency between these statements in <br />regard to the removal and use to be made oFuverburden at the site. <br />Please indicate the conditions under which the removal of overburden may occur and, in consideration of <br />these, estimate how much will be removed and when it may be replaced. <br />EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4 (I) (f)): The Division will accept the applicant's estimate of the cost of reclaiming <br />the pit at the conclusion of mining, i.e. $9,671.00. The applicant will now need to submit that amount in an <br />acceptable form in order that a permit for the operation be issued. (Also see discussion of Performance and <br />Financial Warranties at the beginning of this review.) <br />Please indicate the form of financial warranty intended for use and the Division will send the proper <br />forms. <br />EXHIBIT E (Rule 6.3.5 (2) (c )): As indicated in the somewhat lengthy discussion under Exhibit A, there <br />is some concern on the Division's pan that the names of all owners of record of the surface and subsurface of the <br />affected area or of adjacent surface land and structures within 200 feet of the affected area have not been identified <br />on the Exhibit A and the Exhibit E maps supplied with the application and/or in the application narrative. This may <br />simply be the result of a misunderstanding about [he location of the permit area on the various maps. (Please see <br />discussion under Exhibit A.) However, the locations of [he topsoil and any intended overburden stockpiles are not <br />illustrated or identified on the Exhibit E Mining Plan Map, as submitted. In addition, as previously mentioned, the <br />enclosed map, copied from the file of the Lincoln County pit in the NW '/. NW '/a Section 7, shows a fence situated <br />immediately north east of the pit boundary, a fence that admittedly may or may not still be present. - <br />Please provide appropriately revised Exhibit A and Exhibit E maps and/or application narrative, as <br />indicated under the Exhibit A discussion. The corrected maps should include locations of topsoil and any intended <br />overburden stockpiles and of any fence immediately northeast of the proposed permit azea together with the identity <br />of the fence owner. <br />EXHIBIT F (Rule 6.3.6): Please see discussion under Exhibit C (Rule 6.6.3 (j)). <br />Please add a commitment to this Exhibit to contact [he WQCD to determine if a 404 permit would, as <br />assumed, eliminate the need for a Stormwater Discharge Permit from that agency and advise the Division the <br />outcome of that contact. <br />EXHIBIT G (Rule 6.3.7): The applicant has provided evidence of owning the NW I/4 and SE I/4 of <br />Section 7. Inadvertent or not, the location of the proposed permit area on the Exhibit A and Exhibit E maps appears <br />to indicate the pit extends into the IVE'h SW I/4 Section 7 which may no[ be owned by the Allens. (Please see <br />discussion of this problem under Exhibit A.) <br />if it is intended that the pit extend into the NE'/. SW'/. of Section 7, please provide evidence that the <br />Allens also own the NE'h SW '/. and, therefore, are the owners of record of all the surface and subsurface of the <br />land to be affected by the proposed mining operation. If the Allens do not own the NE'/. SW '/., then indicate who <br />the owner is and provide evidence, for [his Exhibit, that the Allens have a legal right to enter and mine on that <br />portion of the proposed permit area, etc. Alternatively, if there has simply been a misunderstanding about the <br />location of the proposed permit area, provide suitably revised Exhibit A and Exhibit E maps with the permit area <br />properly located and comply with the remainder of the requirements outlined in the Exhibit A discussion, as <br />applicable. <br />EXHIBIT 1(Rule 6.3.10): Evidence has been provided that the required notices of the application have <br />been sent to the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Supervisors of the local Soil Conservation <br />District. At this time, however, evidence of [he receipt of these notices has not been provided. <br />As indicated previously in this review, please provide evidence of the receipt of these notices prior [o the <br />decision date for this application. <br />