Laserfiche WebLink
10. Response Accepted. <br />11. The request for a small area exemption for stockpile F appears <br />unnecessary. From inspection of all pertinent maps and recent <br />aerial photography it appears that the county road ditch, <br />diversion Ditch F-1 and Pond F provide adequate containment of <br />runoff associated with this topsoil stockpile. Please use <br />consistent labeling for this stockpile (F as in text or P-F as on <br />Map 32). The request for a small area exemption for stockpile <br />B-D is approved and will be noted in the Findings Document. <br />12. This question was originally inaccurate and should be resolved <br />through respenses to question 5. <br />13. Response Accepted. <br />14. Response Accepted. <br />16. Response Accepted. <br />16. Response Accepted. <br />1. Responses from July 19, 1991 adequacy letter should be <br />addressed with question 5 <br />2. Response Accepted. <br />3. Response Accepted. <br />4. Response Accepted. <br />5. Response Accepted. <br />Also, Ditch B-1 is shown on Map 16a as an extension of Ditch B-2. Ditch B-2 <br />is noted as a temporary post-mining ditch. However, B-1 does not exist in the <br />field. Is it also a temporary post-mining ditch? Please clarify this issue. <br />If you have any questions or concerns addressing these responses and requests <br />please contact me at your convenience. <br />Sincerely,/ ~ / <br />Kent A. Gorham <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />KAG/eke <br />8168E <br />