ENFORCE30528 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII r Comments before the Mined Land Reclamation Hoard November 18, 1992 ~i9~~ ,_0~2j There are several things i want to bring to the Boards attention concerning the related mining activity outside of the designated affected area at the Latham-Burkett Pit. First, from my research of the file it appears the area included within the affected area was thought to include only minable land. Even though a plant site was identified, it too was included in an area planned for future mining. Second, the area now in question was identified in the general property description of the permit. The area in question was being used by the property owner to store agricultural products and equipment. No mining was planned within the area, and we reasoned processing and storing gravel did not cause a change in the final use of the property after the pit was mined. Third, we saw the site no differently than as a remote processing site for either asphalt or gravel production. Dry hauling either pit run gravel or processed gravel to a plant site for further processing is consistent with ongoing business practices. Fourth, when it was brought to our attention that the use of the area adjacent to the land covered by the reclamation permit needed to be included within the reclamation permit, we immediately took action to amend our permit. The amendment was filed with the Division last Friday. I hope the Board realizes that there was no intention on our part to act outside of the regulations. We are not even sure that when we began using the area the current policies concerning such situations were in effect. We did not change the use of the property by our activity, and the property owners are happy with the current situation. I'd be happy to try answering any questions concerning this matter.