Laserfiche WebLink
2) On the renewal application form itself, the permittee/applicanUoperator is listed as <br />Lodestar Energy, Inc., but the Utah address and phone number is listed. To be consistent <br />with the approved permit, it would seem that the Kentucky address and phone number <br />should be listed for applicant/operator, with the Utah "Mountain Operations" address and <br />phone number listed under "permitting contact", along with the name of the individual <br />contact person. <br />Response: see attachment Issue #2, new page 2 to the renewal application form. The Kentucky <br />address and phone number is listed far applicant/operator, with the Utah `~foun[ain <br />Operations "address and phone number listed under permitting contact" <br />3) We have noted a couple of apparent errors in the information presented on page 3 of the <br />application form. "Actual" affected acreage is listed as 2,189.7 acres, which is equivalent <br />to "permitted" and "proposed" affected acreage. Actual affected acreage would be <br />significantly less than permitted affected acreage, since only a small percentage of the <br />approved mine workings have been developed. The actual "affected area" would include <br />the acreage of current surface disturbance plus the acreage located above underground <br />mine workings on the date of submittal of the renewal application. in the 1996 RN-04 <br />application, the actual affected area is listed as 138 acres. The current actual affected <br />area would have increased due to underground mining that has occurred since that time. <br />Response: see attachment Issue #3, new page 3 to the renewal application form. The "Actual " <br />affected area was recalculated based nn what was mined up to December 31, 2000. <br />Second, the "actual" disturbed acreage is listed as 9.5 acres, which is equivalent to <br />"permitted" and "proposed" disturbed acreage. [n the 1996 RN-04 application, the actual <br />disturbed area is listed as 8.35 acres. The 9.5 acre listing would seem to an error, <br />because there has been no additional ground disturbance at the site since that time. The <br />area approved for disturbance which has not yet been disturbed is associated with <br />realignment of the accesslhaul road between the highway and the East Salt Creek bridge, <br />and construction of the "McClane to Munger" haul road. <br />Please submit appropriately an appropriately amended application form page. <br />Response:.see attachment Issue #3, new page 3 to tJ:e renewal application form. The 'actual " <br />disturbed acreage was changed back to 8.35 acres. <br />2 <br />