PERMFILE100702 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes, May 23-24, 1990 PAGE 17 and discussed the application submittal process. He also referenced . surveyor's maps from the original permit application, where proposed boundary lines were marked (421 acres) and said he felt he had not mined outside the permit boundary. Mr. Hurlburt answered further questions from the Board. Staff referenced Section 112 of the law "any operator desiring to obtain a reclamation permit shall make written application to the Board fora permit on forms provided by the Board. The reclamation permit or the renewal of an existing permit, if approved, shall authorize the operator to engage in such mining operation upon the affected land described in his application for the life of the mine". Staff also reviewed the definitions of "affected land" and "mining operation". Staff presented EXHIBIT B - (Staff's Exhibit A) a letter dated July 11, 1977 to the opera oar swing that the application had been deemed incomplete. A November 14, 1978, letter from the Division to the operator was referenced as Exhibit B. It stated that the mining and reclamation permit application for the Adams Pit should be completed and presented to the Board by the January 1979 Board Meeting. A July 2, 1979, letter to the Division regarding transmittal of the application was referenced (Exhibit C) along with Exhibit D - a legal description which stated the area contained 224.53 acres. Staff presented EXHIBIT C - Staff Exhibit H, the mining permit dated May 12, 1981, whit infi cTu`~ed a legal description of 224.53 acres. Staff introduced Exhibit E - the mine plan map included in the July 2; 1979, conversion application submittal which delineates the affected land boundary in the permit. Staff referenced Exhibits F1 and F2 - pages 8 and 9 of the July 1979 amendment application which defines the limit of mining and mine phases. Staff stated the area the operator was mining on the date of inspection was outside the affected land boundary in the approved permit. Staff answered questions from the Board. Mr. Hurlburt waived the right to an additional notice period for a subsequent hearing, in order for the Board to resolve this issue today. The issue was discussed further. It was MOVED that the Board modify the previous Board Order such that the por ion of the Order that found Mobile Premix to be mining without a permit be rescinded and modified to reflect that Mobile Premix was mining outside the affected area in a manner inconsistent with their approved permit. SECONDED AND PASSED 4 for (Kraeger-Rovey, Cooley, O'Connor and Jouflas); 1 against (Donald). Mrs. Mary Louise Lopez, who owns part of the property across the street from this operation, related problems with the well on her property drying up, due to the de-watering operation of the operator. The operator committed to taking necessary actions to alleviate Mrs. Lopez' complaints. At the Board's request, Staff addressed the process the Board used previously to assess a civil penalty in this matter, and this was discussed.