ENFORCE26864 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Michael Long 4 January 21, 1994 As Mr. Oehler noted with respect to the access road, the enclosed map is very similar to the annual report map submitted sometime prior to February 15, 1993, showing disturbed and reclaimed areas. Neither Mr. Oehler nor Summit's representatives had available at the time of the inspection. The enclosed map more accurately reflects the disturbed and pre-law areas after Summit updated the map in the field following the inspection. Mr. Oehler's report mentions including the access road as affected area, referring to the loop on the access road on the easterly side of the affected area. The aerial photograph submitted with the permit application shows that loop, and the lease agreement between Summit and the surface owners provides that those roads will be left in their existing condition upon termination of the lease. I enclose a copy of the lease provision concerning that matter. The road existed prior to the date on which the permit application was made, was constructed for purposes unrelated to the mining operation, and has not been and will not be substantially upgraded to support the mining operation, and therefore should be excluded from the definition of affected land under Section 34-32-103(1.5). That road was intended to be the easterly boundary of the affected area. The access road on the federal land must be reclaimed under the terms of the BLM contract and, under those terms, y/;bi-/`•~J~iS closed at the entrance to public lands upon completion of ?~;.~; y-~,,; ,. mining operations. The pre-law affected area within the t ~.1i~6~ federal lands will also be reclaimed under that agreement. „~~~,~~~' As noted by Mr. Oehler, the permit was issued for 9.9 acres and there is some confusion as to whether or not the permit area is supposed to be 9.9 acres or 8.2 acres. Summit has at no time exceeded 8.2 acres disturbed area, and the enclosed map includes a total affected area of 8.2 acres. The original topographical map was by its very nature generalized and could not be accurately tracked on the ground. Even now, the statutes provide that 110(2) applications require less exactness on maps and size than required of 112 applications. The map was, however, intended to conform to the aerial photograph in the same permit application, with a depiction of the area of future mining. The mining has been confined to an area less than that permitted, and has always been within the legal description provided in the permit application. Boundary marking requirements were not adopted until 1991. Summit marked the boundary of its permit area and has always confined its activities to the boundary as marked on the ground. The application form in 1977 provided that the affected area