PERMFILE50880 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6.4.8 EXHIBIT H -Wildlife Information 20. The applicant has adequately addressed the requirements of Rule 6.4.8(1) via the Wildlife Assessment completed by Savage and Savage, and the Division has not yet received any review comments from the Division of Wildlife (DOW). However, the Division encourages HI to obtain a written response from the DOW to verify the conclusions listed in the Savage and Savage Wildlife Assessment. Attached aze objections letters which list adverse impacts to wildlife as a reason for denial of the pernut. Please provide a written response to the objectors comments regazding adverse impacts to wildlife. 6.4.12 EXHIBIT L -Reclamation Costs 21. HI's interpretation of the bonding requirements specified in the Division's September, 2000 Lined Pit Guide is incorrect. The Division will require a 100% installation cost for the liner until such time that HI can meet the requirements of the "Regulated Construction Option". A bonding requirement of 20% of the total installation cost will then be acceptable. HI can satisfy the requirements of the Regulated Construction Option either during the review period of this regular 112 application or following the outcome of this application via submittal of a technical revision. Unless otherwise specified by HI, the Division will assume these pazameters for the slurry wall installation: thickness of 3', total depth of 44', and total length of 9,2821ineaz feet. Please respond. 22. As previously mentioned in Item 9 another consideration for bonding of the slurry wall installation and development of 3 water storage reservoirs is the potential for leakage into the pit through the bedrock pit floor. Unless HI can provide the Division with a geologic evaluation of the proposed pit floor bedrock that demonstrates that leakage will not occur, HI will need to include in Exhibit L an itemized cost for sealing fractured or sandy bedrock that maybe uncovered during mining and that may leak in excess of Office of the State Engineer established criteria at this time. Please address. 23. The reclamation cost estimate for the maximum disturbance expected will need to be revised accordingly based on the concerns listed in this adequacy review. Please respond. ---- 6.4.14 EXHIBIT N -Source of Leeal Rieht to Enter 24. The applicant has applied for a permit application for 134.21 acres and provided a legal description of these 134.21 acres in Exhibit A, page 10. Further, the applicant lists Water Resources, LLC as the surface owner of these 134.21 acres. Review of the documents provided in Exhibit N, beginning on page 30 indicates that Water Resources has obtained two deeds, one of which is for Lot B of Corrected Lot B. It appears that the other pazcel Water Resources owns is north of Lot B. The letter agreement that serves as a basis for Hall Irwin's legal right of entry to the 134.21 acres only covers Lot B. Please verify that Hall Irwin is applying for a nursing and reclamation permit for Lot B only and not any other parcels.