Laserfiche WebLink
3. Page 2 of the application form was not revised and re-submitted as requested in the March <br />6, 2002 adequacy letter. Page 2 states that the proposed amendment applies to a site located <br />in Section 27, T9S, R54W. It is now known that the area you are proposing to expand is in <br />Section 27, T9S, R64W. Please correct and re-submit page 2 of the application form. <br />Exhibit A does not need to be revised. <br />4. The revised Index map, Exhibit B, is OK. <br />5. Exhibit C is still required, as requested in the March 6, 2002 adequacy letter. Now that <br />Elbert County has an accurate base map, it should not be difficult to follow the instructions <br />in Rule 6.2 and Rule 6.4.3 in the preparation of this Exhibit. A sepazate pre-mining map <br />and a mining plan map are required. Make sure the maps contain accurate legends <br />explainirig the dashed lines, the solid lines and the comments so the public can distinguish <br />the difference between the permit boundary and the affected land boundary. <br />6. Exhibit D -Mining Plan -the response to Exhibit D from Elbert County is kind of <br />confusing. It states that "this is an application fora 112 Gravel Pit." This is incorrect. The <br />application that was submitted in September, 2001 is an amendment to expand the size of <br />an existing 112 permit. You need to correct your response. <br />In addition, there is a reference to an Exhibit C map. Appazently, an exhibit C map was <br />suppose to be included in your response. However, there is no exhibit C map. If the <br />reference is to the old map that was attached to the response packet you should be awaze <br />that the old map needs to be discazded because it is inaccurate; the very reason a new map <br />was required. <br />Also, as requested in the March 6, 2002 adequacy letter, you need to explain and delineate <br />(on all three maps) the direction of mining (whether it is section A-D or area A-D) and <br />delineate the sections or areas on all the maps. And, remember, all maDS (except the index <br />map) need to conform to requirements of Rule 6.2. <br />The mining plan states that the existing gravel pit in operation at this time is a 110 permit. <br />This is incorrect. The existing pit is a 112 pemut. <br />The mining plan states that additional information regarding the site's soil resources is <br />provided in Exhibit I -Soils information. Could not find an exhibit I in the latest response <br />submittal. <br />The mining plan states that the Exhibit C map illustrates typical stockpile placement as a <br />stabilization measure. Could not find an exhibit C map in the latest response submittal. <br />Please follow instructions in paragraph 5 above regazding exhibit C. <br />Please provide the following information: the nature, depth and thickness of the deposit to <br />be mined, the thickness and type of overburden to be removed and the nature of the stratum <br />immeadiately beneath the material to be mined. <br />Identify the primary and secondary commodities to be mined/extracted and describe the <br />intended use, plus name and describe the intended use of all expected incidental products to <br />be mined/extracted (if any). <br />7. Exhibit E -Reclamation Plan -your latest response does not include an exhibit F map <br />showing the "final planned configuration of the azea". This will be addressed in Exhibit F <br />comments. <br />