Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. "The thickness of gravel to be mined stated in this paragraph is upwards of a8 feet which is <br />inconsistent with the SUP application depicting that the depth of the limits of disturbance <br />would be approximately 30 feet." (Diane & Thane Anderson, September 21, 1998) <br />4. "The paragraph makes reference to a temporary office trailer that may be needed and this is <br />inconsistent with the statement made in the SUP application that, `Temporary structures <br />include a portable toilet facility. No office or maintenance facilities aze proposed.' Also, <br />there was no mention of scales in the SUP application and these buildings and scales are not <br />indicated on the map submitted to the County." (Diane & Thane Anderson, September 21. <br />1998) <br />5. "There was no mention of sumps in the application to the county. We question the amount <br />of additional noise that the sumps will create." (Diane & Thane Anderson, September 21, <br />1998) <br />6. "Exhibit E, Reclamation Plan. The location of the two shallow wetland areas mentioned in <br />this paragraph were never mentioned in the SUP application. In fact it is stated that `No <br />pond, lake or other water body is proposed for reclamation...."'(Diane & Thane Anderson, <br />September 21, 1998) <br />7. "In pazagraph, it is stated that a minor amount of clean fill material from off-site may be <br />hauled and used to backfill the excavated mine pit azeas at this location. This statement is <br />inconsistent with the SUP application that states that some of the overburden may be sold." <br />(Diane & Thane Anderson, September 21, 1998) <br />8. "Final Shoreline Configuration...In addition, these areas being created for mitigation of <br />wildlife impact recommended by the DOW and aze dry for a good portion of the season. <br />Also, a dry surface in these azeas is hardly mitigating visual impact." (Diane & Thane <br />Anderson, September 2/, 1998) <br />9. "Exhibit F, Reclamation Plan Map. The final topography indicates a deep pit with two <br />ponds, sometimes wet, which is in far contrast to the current flowing landscape existing at <br />present. This does not constitute minimum visual impact." (Diane & Thane Anderson, <br />September 21, 1998) <br />10. "Exhibit K, Climate. The statement made in this paragraph regazding wind direction, <br />typically west to east is inconsistent with the typical direction stated in the SUP application, <br />NW to SE." (Diane & Thane Anderson, September 21, 1998) <br />11. "Exhibit M, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The investigation by Sue Nall was completed <br />in May of 1997. The site visit revealed that only wetland impact associated with this <br />proposed operation will be for a road crossing of the drainage and associated wetland. Since <br />the time of her investigation, the location of the crossing has changed due to the new <br />location of [he haul road. A new investigation needs to be scheduled." (Diane & Thane <br />Anderson, September 21, 1998) <br />7 <br />