Laserfiche WebLink
<br />If the objector is concerned about the loss of pasture, the Rutes and Regulations do not require the <br />return of an area to the pre-mining land use, a beneficial use is what is required. <br />ISSUED RAISED DURING THE INITIAL PUBLIC COM~l1ENT PERIOD THAT THE <br />DIV/SION BELIEVES ARE NOT WITH/N THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION ND <br />BOARD <br />Mr. Davis raised several issues which the Division does not believe are within its jurisdiction. <br />These issues include: <br />• Additional traffic in the area, the damage that occurs to the roads. <br />• The decrease of property value in the area. <br />• Effects of additional trash due to additional work force. <br />• Safety of the local residents. <br />• The effects the operation will have on air quality. <br />• Increase of noise created by the operation of equipment and the movement of trucks traveling in <br />and out of the operation. <br />The Division also received a letter from W. C. "Chris" Alexander of the Crawford Broadcasting <br />Company. Mr. Alexander was concerned about the possibility of vertical metallic structures at the pit <br />operation interfering with the Broadcasting Company's directional antenna signals. The Division has <br />notified the applicant of this concern but does not believe [hat this problem is within the jurisdiction of <br />the Division or Board. <br />ISSUED RAISED AFTER THE INITIAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THAT THE DIVISION <br />BELIEVES MAYBE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD <br />Mr. Davis submitted a second letter on May 1, 2000 after the Apri125, 2000 Informal Conference. In <br />this letter he added the following comments: <br />I am especially concerned about the loss of my property, due to the increased potential risk of <br />off-site damage. <br />2. Any established trees that are in the 400-foot setback or near to it should be saved. This seems <br />to follow the purpose of one of the requirements of this permit. As it makes no sense to remove <br />standing trees and then replace them with seeding. <br />3. I have concerns on the inlet and outlet of the water for the lake after completion. <br />4. Also I have some concerns with some of the same issues in the 3 page letter from Allen <br />Sorenson dated April 12, 2000 to the Division. <br />Resaonse <br />Potential Risk of Off-Site Damage <br />