PERMFILE63294 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Exhibit S -Permanent Man-made Structures You have provided a good listing of the structures on and near the permit area. You will not be operating near the canal, ditch, buried telephone line, southern fenceline or highway, and damage to those structures is not expected. Your access road along the east edge of the site is adjacent to the overhead powerline and poles, and the eastem fenceline. There is a possibility of damage to those structures, not necessarily by mining but by hauling or road maintenance. An engineering evaluation showing no damage to the powerline was provided. This evaluation may be considered adequate if your excavation does not encroach closer than the setback distance you stated, and if the closest and final slope consists of unmined native material, and not of backfilled material. Please verify commitment to these conditions. The eastem fenceline, which has shared ownership between you and Mrs. McCormick, will fall under the same protections detailed in the engineering evaluation, as long as the same excavating method and setback distance are adhered to throughout the length of the east side. Please verify this. The fencelines along the north and west sides, having shared ownership between you and those respective neighboring landowners, must have the potential damage addressed. Your mining plan calls for stockpiling topsoil for later use along the unmined 40-foot-wide strips immediately within those fencelines. Reclamation equipment may cause damage to those fences. Please review the requirements of Exhibit S, and submit information to satisf}• one of the alternatives for this exhibit. Additional items I received the receipt for the first additional filing with the clerk and recorder. As before, this letter to you and your follow-up responses to me will need to be filed, with a receipt obtained and sent to me before the decision date. L have not received any further correspondence from Walter Baker, an adjoining landowner. I reviewed the additional proofs of notifying adjoining property owners, and all appears complete. I have not received any written comment from any of those parties, except one. As you know, we did receive a timely written objection from another adjoining landowner, Frances McCormick. We have begun the series of extra notices and conferences as we aze required to do. We will continue to mail materials pertinent to that subject under separate cover. The State statutes require that the decision date for the application occur no sooner after the end of the public comment period than 30 days. As you know, the initial decision date was se[ for April 25, 2000. Due to the extra notices you were required to publish, the 30-day period after the end of the public comment period falls on April 27, 2000. Therefore, the Division's decision on your application has been reset for April 27, 2000. Since we have received the timely written objection, the Division now cannot make the decision on the application, but may only make a recommendation to the Mined Land Reclamation Board, and the Board will make the decision. We will schedule the decision hearing before the Board for the May 24-25, 2000, meeting. You will receive a formal notice of that hearing in the coming weeks. Thank you for your prompt submittal of the first adequacy response materials. I appreciate the inclusion of the multiple copies. The materials to be submitted in answer to this letter may be submitted in duplicate; the Denver office informed me that five copies are not needed for these follow-up materials. If you have questions, I may be reached at the Division's Durango field office: 701 Camino del Rio, Room 125, Durango CO S 1301; tel 970/247-5 l93 or fax 970/247-5104. Sincerely, Bob Oswald Environmental Protection Specialist a:lcolo~av ad2/rco