Laserfiche WebLink
be submitted as an addendum or attachment to the permit application. <br />Although certain elements of the request were not specifically addressed by the <br />response, the Division's judgement is that sufficient information regazding <br />feasibility of the commercial use has been provided to demonstrate compliance <br />with 4.16.3(2). Providence Place, Ina (PPI, the commercial fruit grower) is an <br />established operator in the Palisade area. As described on amended page 15-1, <br />PPI has leased the South Portal facilities from SCC since 2005, and since <br />commencement of the lease PPI has been using facilities on the upper bench for <br />equipment and material storage, and facilities on the lower level for a retail sales <br />facility (fruit stand), a refrigeration unit and package azea, and material storage. <br />Item Resolved. <br />25. DRMS requested that SCC amend the Postmine Topography Map Exhibit 6C to <br />include the proposed Postmining Land Use boundaries, and to label the various <br />alternative land use stmctures and facility areas on the amended Exhibit 6C, in <br />accordance with their planned use. The map was amended to address the concern, <br />however we request some additional clarification. <br />Most of the relatively flat lower facility area including the former wash plant site <br />and other areas in the general vicinity of the sales and storage buildings is <br />designated on Exhibit 6C-A as an "Active Area" under the alternative postmine <br />land use, and not subject to vegetative stabilization. We assume the active use in <br />this area would include equipment and material storage, parking lot, travel routes, <br />septic tank/absorption field, etc., but the uses are not indicated on the map. Also, <br />a portion of the area toward the south end is described under section (e), at the top <br />of amended page 14-16. Text indicates that the premining land use of the area <br />was industrial or commercial, but this is not consistent with other sections of the <br />application. Justification for why the azea would not be subject to revegetation <br />should be based on the active use status and erosional stability. <br />Please include appropriate notation describing the uses of the lower facility <br />active use area on Exhibit 6C, similar to the notation provided for the top of <br />RSRDA active use area. Also, please delete the text reference to premining <br />industriallcommercial land use for a portion of the site, on page 14-16, and <br />clarify that gravel surfacing will be provided following final grading on those <br />portions of the lower facility area that are not hard surfaced and will not be <br />revegetated. <br />26. DRMS requested, pursuant to Rule 3.02.3(2)(c) that SCC address proposed <br />criteria for demonstrating that the alternative land use "has substantially <br />commenced and is likely to be achieved", and for demonstrating that "the ground <br />cover of living plants" is not "less than required to control erosion". Operator <br />response was that the alternative use has already substantially commenced, given <br />the use of various facilities by PPI in their commercial fruit operation since 2005, <br />