Laserfiche WebLink
whether the April 30, 1997 TR should be resubmitted as an amendment should not, and does not, <br /> implicate the amendment currently before the Board. Treating issues that involve disturbed areas <br /> on the pit floor only in conjunction with issues involving a pre-existing structure within the permit <br /> boundary unrelated to the mining will only delay the implementation of a reclamation plan <br /> amendment designed to conserve surface water and establish post-mining land uses of wildlife <br /> habitat in conformance with Construction Materials Rules 3.1.8(1) and (2) and the currently <br /> approved reclamation plan. <br /> E. The opposing parties are merely seeking to delay the implementation of <br /> a sound reclamation plan by complicating the issues brought before the <br /> Board for review. <br /> Western Mobile contends that the request to combine the April 30, 1997 TR <br /> and the amendment is an attempt by the opposing parties to complicate these proceedings before the <br /> Board and to delay the reclamation process at the Deepe Farm Pit for political purposes. The <br /> opposing parties stated at the June 5, 1997 pre-hearing conference that by limiting the number of <br /> lakes on the pit floor, the current land owner will be able to more easily develop the site sometime <br /> in the future. The nature of potential future uses of this property after bond release is outside the <br /> Board's jurisdiction as established by the Construction Materials statute and rules. The questions <br /> properly before the Board relate to the amendment only and are outlined in Issue Nos. 3 through 5 <br /> of the Order. These include whether the amendment conforms to the stated post-mining land use <br /> of wildlife and agriculture, including whether the proposed decrease in exposed water surface is <br /> appropriate to habitat management and creation, and whether the topsoil replacement as proposed <br /> in the amendment is sufficient to support the plant species to be established in the reclamation. <br /> Issue No. 2. Whether the formal public hearing now set for June 26, 1997 should be <br /> continued and reset to include consideration of the proposed changes to the <br /> berm in conjunction with and as part of the Amendment? <br /> For the reasons stated above, Western Mobile has requested in the attached Amended <br /> Pre-Hearing Statement that the Order be amended to limit the scope of the June 26, 1997 formal <br /> hearing to the amendment request only. This Issue No. 2 in the Order appears to relate to the <br /> adequacy of the public notice of hearing in this matter. Regardless of the Board's decision with <br /> respect to Issue No. 1, Issue No. 2 is moot for the following reasons. Should the Board decide to <br /> hear only the amendment at the June 26, 1997 formal hearing, as requested by Western Mobile and <br /> recommended by the Division, the adequacy of the public notice is not an issue at all. Conversely, <br /> should the Board decide to combine its hearing of the present amendment and the April 30, 1997 TR <br /> against the recommendation of the Division and Western Mobile, the Board would have the <br /> discretion to hear the issues, as combined, at the June 26, 1997 formal hearing since all the parties, <br /> witnesses, and exhibits will be present and available. <br /> 9 <br />