Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. `'The thickness of gravel to be mined stated in [his paragraph is upwards of 48 feet which is <br />inconsistent with the SUP application depicting that the depth of the limits of disturbance <br />would be approximately 30 feet." (Diane & Thane Anderson, Septemher 21, 1998) <br />4. "Tlte paragraph makes reference to a temporary office trailer that may be needed and this is <br />inconsistent with the statement made in the SUP application tha[, `Temporary structures <br />include a portable toilet facility. No office or maintenance facilities are proposed.' Also, <br />there was no mention of scales in the SUP application and these buildings and scales are not <br />indicated on the map submitted to the Countv." (Diane & Thane ,Anderson, September 21, <br />1998) <br />5. ``There was no mention of sumps in the application to the county. We question the amount <br />of additional noise that the sumps will create." (Diane & Thane Anderson, September 2!, <br />1998) <br />6. `Exhibit E, Reclamation Plan. The location of the two shallow wetland areas mentioned in <br />this pazagraph were never mentioned in the SUP application. In fact it is stated that `No <br />pond, lake or other water body is proposed for reclamation...."'(Diane & Thane Anderson, <br />September 21, 1998) <br />7. "In pazagraph, it is stated that a minor amount of clean fill material from off-site may be <br />hauled and used to backfill the excavated mine pit areas at this location. This statement is <br />inconsistent with the SUP application that states that some of the overburden may be sold." <br />(Diane & Thane Anderson, September 21, 1998) <br />8. "Final Shoreline Configuration...In addition, these areas being created for mitigation of <br />wildlife impact recommended by the DOW and aze dry for a good portion of the season. <br />Also, a dry surface in these areas is hazdly mitigating visual impact." (Diane & Thane <br />Anderson, September 2/, 1998) <br />9. "Exhibit F, Reclamation Plan Map. The final topography indicates a deep pit with two <br />ponds, sometimes wet, which is in faz contrast to the current flowing landscape existing at <br />present. This does not constitute minimtun visual impact." (Diane & Thane Anderson, <br />September 21, 1998) <br />10. "Exhibit K, Climate. The statement made in this pazagraph regarding wind direction, <br />typically west to east is inconsistent with the typical direction stated in the SUP application, <br />NW to SE." (Diane & Thane Anderson, September 1/, 1998) <br />11. "Exhibit Ivf, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The investigation by Sue Nall was completed <br />in May of 1997. The site visit revealed that only wetland impact associated with this <br />proposed operation will be for a road crossing of the drainage and associated wetland. Since <br />the time of her investigation, the location of the crossing has changed due to the new <br />location of the haul road. A new investigation needs to be scheduled." (Diane & Thane <br />.Anderson, September 21, 1998) <br />7 <br />