Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2. The portion of the pond depicted as extending outside of the proposed amended boundary has <br />been brought to the attention of the applicant. It was apparently drawn that way in error. This <br />application will not be approved if any activity is proposed to occur outside the permit boundary. <br />3. The vegetation depicted as being on the north boundary of Phases 5-7 does not exist, and this <br />was brought to the attention of the applicant. There is indeed a berm there now. The map itself <br />will be corrected, but the need for placement of a visual berm or vegetative buffer is under the <br />county'sjurisdiction, not DMG's. This office considers the berm in question simply to be a <br />temporary stockpile of topsoil, to be replaced during reclamation of Phases 5-7. <br />4. The ditch will not be disturbed, according to the operator's statement during the pre-operation <br />inspection. I have requested that the applicant delineate on maps all areas to be affected by <br />mining-related activity, and fully identify all significant structures. <br />5. As stated above, the operator indicated that mining will not occur as far east as ]and <br />immediately adjacent to Buck Highway. In the case of damage to the highway, the house or any <br />other significant structure, an applicant must either provide an appropriate damage liability <br />agreement between the operator and owner of the structure, or provide an engineering evaluation <br />supporting any claim that there will be no chance of damage. An operator is seldom bonded for <br />such potential damage outside a permit, because if the damage potential remains significant, either <br />the mining plan is modified to allow a greater buffer or the area and structure become included in <br />the permit. In this case, operations will not encroach that far to the east. <br />6. This discrepancy has been brought to the attention of the applicant. Some clarification was <br />made during the inspection, when it was stated that there will be several different post-mining land <br />uses, from ponds to pasture in the various phases and amendments, and that our application forms <br />were not adequate to allow an applicant to fully represent all of them. <br />7. I have asked the applicant for clarification to these items (affected areas, mining plan, pond or <br />rangeland, accuracy of maps, etc.) in my review of the amendment application, which relate to <br />both the existing permit area and the new amendment. These will all have to be adequately <br />answered before any approval can be given. <br />Regarding the applicant's apparently indefinite answer about where mining "may" occur, please <br />know that the operator's disturbances must be limited to permitted lands within defined affected <br />area boundaries. Within those boundaries, the activity must be limited to the types approved. <br />Previous mining was conducted in phases, and future operations are presumably to be phased <br />also. (Phasing and the total bond amount normally act to limit an operator's disturbance.) All <br />reclamation must match the approved plan. However, if operations terminate before the site is <br />fully mined, the amount of mining disturbance and the resulting reclamation need may vary, <br />because this amarket-driven operation. <br />8. Pit backfilling would involve materials generated onsite. There may be ari area of deep <br />overburden, for example, which could be placed in a pit area. Or there may be a high percentage <br />of reject material per volume of pitrun, generated by processing the mined material. (If there is <br />