Laserfiche WebLink
component of the revegetation plan did no[ indicate the presence of noxious weeds within <br />the permitted area. The Division inspector did not note the presence of any noxious <br />weeds during two different site inspections, on December 7, 2004 and on October 13, <br />2005. If noxious weeds aze discovered on the site during future site inspections, the <br />Division will require the Applicant to submit a weed control plan pursuant to Rule <br />3.1.10(6). Failure to submit a weed control plan will then become a compliance issue. <br />36. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant has met the minimum <br />requirements of Rules 3.1. I0(6). <br />37. Issue 7(L), Adequacy of Description of Vegetative Resources with Respect to <br />Relationship Between Present Vegetative Types and Soil Types (Rule 6.4.10 - <br />Exhibit ,~. This issue arises from the objectors' questions concerning the presence or <br />absence of wetlands on the site. The Division sent a standazd notice to the Army Corps <br />of Engineers and other state and federal agencies requesting comment on the proposed <br />quarry operations. The Corps responded with a letter dated November 18, 2004 in which <br />it stated that if the project requires the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of <br />the United States, the Corps must be notified and the proper Clean Water Act permits <br />obtained. The Division inspected the proposed quarry site and did not notice the <br />presence of hydric soil conditions, hydrophilic plants or water conditions that aze <br />wetlands indicators. Based on Division inspections and Applicant submittals, there are <br />no known jurisdictional wetlands on the site. <br />38. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant has met the minimum <br />requirements of Rule 6.4.10 -Exhibit J. <br />M.'viRR Board Order, M-2004-067 16 <br />2686 <br />