My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE102163
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE102163
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:56:10 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 8:35:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1998058
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
11/9/1998
Doc Name
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OVER OBJECTIONS REGULAS 112 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PERMIT
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />~. "The paragraph states that office and maintenance buildings exist and to our knowledge they do not <br />exist and do not appear on an_v plan showing the existing buildings." (Diane & Thane ,Inclerson- <br />September 21, 1998) <br />DIvIG Response: The office and maintenance buildings are noted in the permit tent and included on <br />flap #3, and this meets the minimum requirements of the Rules and Regulations. Whether they exist <br />at the present time is irrelevant to the DivIG permitting process. <br />6. "There is no documentation submitted with this application as required by the Rules and Regulation <br />providing proof of ownership of surface or mineral rights. The deed presented in this packet is <br />irrelevant to the ownership rights. In addition, the relevant deed on record does not grant mineral <br />ownership rights to the applicant." (Dinne & Thane Anderson- September 21, 1998) <br />DMG Response: The applicant provided proof of ownership of the surface and mineral rights for the <br />proposed mining location. DMG must accept a good faith showing of legal right to enter and mine <br />the materials and cannot determine property rights. <br />Exhibit E. Reclamntion Plan <br />7. "Is the statement in this pazagraph regazding "absence of slope" consistent with the reclamation plan <br />of final slope of 3:1?" (Diane & Thane Anderson- September 21, /998) <br />DMG Response: The Division believes the statement "absence of slope" is consistent with the <br />proposed reclamation plan in the text and Ivfap #4. <br />8. "The statement is not clear on whether willows, narrowleaf cottonwoods, and other wetland species <br />will be planted on reseeded sites." (Diane & Thane Anderson- September 21, 1998) <br />DIvfG Response: The applicant provided a seedmix for the wetland azeas which consist of the <br />following; Reed Canarygrass (~#PLS/acre), Tall Fescue (~#PLS/acre), Redtop (~#PLS/acre) and <br />Strawberry Clover (5#PLS/acre). Willows, Nanowleaf Cottonwoods and other wetland species will <br />be planted along the perimeter of the two proposed wetland sites at a density of one plant every one- <br />hundred feet. <br />9. "The 2"° sentence in this pazagraph is unintelligible. The reclamation of the dewatering ditches <br />needs to be clarified. (Diane & Thane .I nderson- September 21, 1998) <br />DMG Response: Reclamation of the dewatering ditches is addressed in Exhibit E, item #~. The <br />overburden generated from the initial mining blocks will be used to backfill the highwall and the <br />dewatering ditches. The overburden will be placed over the mined area to a final slope of 3h:ly. <br />t0. "Final Shoreline Configuration. We question whether the Reclamation Plan is adequate for the <br />wetlands areas. When no water is in the ponds, the surface will be muddy or dry and cracked or <br />dusty." (Dinne & Thane Anderson- September 2/, 1998) <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.