Laserfiche WebLink
<br />BEFORE TFIE MIVED LAND RE('LAIvtATION BOARD <br />PETI I1O~ FO(Z KF:COVSIDF.R:\T1O~ <br />I~ THE ~IA'i l F.R t)i i HF :1P!'Lf(~A f ION OF HALDURSON ,qVD SONS, INC. FILE <br />\O. ~1-'_003-03? <br />I'agc 2 <br />Creek Pit have been mined for years without encountering groundaatrr. The i`tctcalf Pit <br />encountered growtdwater only at the bottom oC the resource. All three applications were <br />approccd without monitoring conditions sunilar to those imposed here. <br />Finally, the opponents' experts did not file roports prior to the hearing and the bases <br />fur their opinions was not known so as to pemtit the applicant to prepare an adequate <br />rebuttal. <br />For these reasons, the petitioner could not reasonably anticipate the need for the Icvel <br />of information and analysis reflected in the Lewicki Report. [t is, therefore, appropriate for <br />the Board to consider the report :ts containing new and relevant facts not masonably known <br />or available to the Petitioner at the nme of the hearing. <br />2. 1.111"1':\'1'IOYti O~ UF:PTH OF F.XCA~':~TIOV. The DMG recommendation <br />~~~~uld h:ne atlu~':c.l the .lf~plicant t~~ excavate to a limit of t«enty ('0') feat from the currem <br />surface of the ground. The Board modified the proposed condition to prohibit all excavation <br />prior ro generating one full year of monitoring data. It is the considered opinion of the <br />applicant's expert, \9r. Lewicki, that this condition is wmecessary based upon the <br />infunnation dISCUSSed in his report, attached hereto. We behcve that the evidence <br />wnsen•aticcly supports a condition allowing excavation to a depth of thirteen l l ±') feet <br />below the surface pending completion of the one-year of monitoring. This would allow for <br />the removal of three (3') feel of overburden and ten (10') Icet oC gravel. The Petitioner is <br />willing to abide by a thinecn (13') foot limitation, for that one-year period. In addition, <br />