Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Response - Based on our interpretation of the regulation cited such <br />agreement is required when damage is anticipated. WAI anticipates that <br />no damage to Department of Highways structures (that is the highway or <br />the overpass) will occur as a result of mining. The mining activities <br />and equipment will be confined to the west side of SH 93. No equipment <br />will routinely cross the highway or beneath the underpass. Further <br />mining itself is set back a distance sufficient to ensure no damage to <br />the highway. Planned slopes will be gentler than exist presently and <br />will start at a distance of not less than presently exists. No damage <br />has occurred in the past mining operation nor since the mine was <br />terminated since 1975 as a result of the mining activities. <br />4, a, Is the processing plant east of SH 93 currently operating? Whom <br />does is service? Is it included within the permitted acreage? If <br />operating, where are the wastes currently stowed? <br />Response - The processing plant has been idle since 1975. There are, <br />however, a few minor activities ongoing at the site presently, <br />including: <br />1. Grain Storage in the concrete silos <br />2. Coal unloading from rail and distribution by truck to local <br />markets. <br />3. Cabinet making shop <br />4. Boat making shop <br />5. Office building for LC Holdings, Inc. <br />Wc: have chosen, based on previous discussions with MLRD staff, that the <br />plant site not be included within the permit boundary. No wastes are <br />being generated on site. <br />b. The processing site may need to be included within the permit <br />boundaries if its primary function is servicing the shale quarry. <br />Please discuss. <br />Response - As mentioned above, when we began to assemble the permit <br />application information, we invited Mr. Carl Mount of your staff to tour <br />the facility and mining site. Based on our discussions,a decision was <br />made that the processing site would not be required to be included in <br />the permit boundary. Following are the rational backing that decision: <br />1. The processing plant was built in 1961, prior to the Mined <br />Land Reclamation Act. Following construction all disturbed <br />areas on the site were reclaimed. Placing the facility back <br />into operation would require insignificant new disturbance. <br />2. Subsequent to the site's use as a lightweight aggregates <br />production facility, the site will not be dismantled. <br />Rather, we plank! to convert the plant to another beneficial <br />use, e.g. cement production, lime production or another <br />related activity. We have gained approval from Jefferson <br />County through our zoning/platting process to explore these <br />future uses post-lightweight aggregate production. <br />Therefore, to include the plant site within the permit <br />boundaries with attendant reclamation and bonding does not <br />seem appropriate. <br />