1979-10-22_PERMIT FILE - M1979165

• Permit No: M1979165
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 10/22/1979
• Doc Name: SAND AND GRAVEL PIT 3 FN 79-165
• From: LEE AND MARTURANO
• To: MLRB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

James B. McArdle
October 22, 1979
Page Four
6 . As set forth in revised Exhibit "E", the respective
parties understand their responsibilities on reclamation.
E. ) In response to your questions about Exhibit "F" , I have at-
tached 5 copies of a revised Exhibit "F" which does not at
all vary the map. The initial map proposed showed the minimal
reclamation which is what we are proposing, i.e. the reclamation
of the permiter above the water to the extent of 3 . 26 acres,
and again, approximately 2 . 5 acres below the water for a total
of 5 .75 acres reclaimed. As I stated above, and as restated
in the revised Exhibit "F" , the size of the ponds left are
described as 10 acres in Parcel A and . 9 acres in Parcel B.
F. ) With regard to Exhibit "G" on Water Information, as we have in
all prior revised exhibits mentioned the standing ponds of
water, I have provided 5 copies of a revised Exhibit "G" which
speak to the standing ponds of water and refer back to the
initial Exhibit "G" on evaporative loss .
G. ) The reclamation costs, I believe, would stay the same in that,
as you and I discussed, the surety requirement as I set forth
in Exhibit "L" initially, is on the basis that the surety would
require 10% of the actual bond amount written and, therefore,
the figure is somewhat lower than the bond to be set. As a
consequence there is no revised Exhibit "L" , and we are con-
fident that those costs would not exceed the estimates except
by maybe 5% and may be as much as 10% below the estimates.
Because of what was said above in terms of the reclamation
only of the perimeter to the extent of 3. 26 acres above the
water, and at most, an additional 2. 5 acres below the water,
that overburden placed so that the grade is correct, then
there needs to be no recalculation of the reclamation costs
for the filled pond areas. If, of course, the owner wishes
to refill to a greater extent, then he can appear before the
Board, or, if the operator should want to agree with the owner
to do that, then the operator would be back on a Technical
Revision which would necessarily then cause a recalculation.
H. ) Finally, with regard to Exhibit "N" , you have seen the original
of those permits for excavation within 25 feet of any structures,
and attached are 5 copies of that which can supplement Exhibit
"N" .
If anything further is necessary, please contact me at your con-
venience. As I see it at this point, we have the loose end to
tie up, hoepfully before the hearing, of permission for the gravel
access road so as to get to Parcel B.
With best regards,
LEE AN MARTURANOI P .C.