My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE106669
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE106669
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:59:19 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 2:05:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1998058
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
9/21/1998
Doc Name
TELLIER GRAVEL PIT PERMIT APPLICATION
To
DMG
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.
/
4
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
i ! • • <br />depicting that the depth of the limits of disturbance would be <br />approximately 30 feet. <br />5. The haul mad shown in Map 3 shows the length of the existing <br />ranch road to be approximately 200 feet rather than the stated <br />length of approximately 165 feet. The paragraph states that office <br />aad maintenance buildings exist ead to our knowledge they do not <br />exist and do not appear on any plan showing existing buildings. In <br />addition, the paragraph makes reference to a temporary office <br />trailer that may be needed and this is inconsistent with the <br />statement made in the SUP application that, "Temporary structures <br />include a portable toilet facility. No office or maintenance facilities <br />are proposed." Also, there was no mention of scales in the SUP <br />application and these buildings and scales ere not indicated on the <br />map submitted to the county. <br />9. There was no mention of sumps in the application to the county. <br />We question the amount of additional noise that the sumps will <br />create. <br />13. Owners. There is no documentation submitted with this <br />application as required by the Rules end Regulations providing <br />proof of ownership of surface or mineral rights. The deed <br />presented in this packet is irrelevant to the ownership rights. In <br />addition, the relevant deed on record does not grant mineral <br />ownership rights to the applicant. <br />EXHIBIT E, Reclamation Plan <br />The location of the two shallow wetland areas mentioned in this <br />paragraph were never mentioned in the SUP application. In fact it is <br />stated that "No pond, lake or other water body is proposed for <br />reclamation... „ <br />1. In this paragraph, it is stated that a minor amount of clean fill <br />material from off site may be hauled and used to backftll the <br />excavated mine pit areas at this location. This statement is <br />inconsistent with the SUP application that states that some of the <br />overburden may be sold. <br />3e. Is the statement in this pm~agraph regarding "absence of slope" <br />consistent with the reclamation plan of final slope 3:17 <br />3f. The statement is not clear on whether willows, natrowleaf <br />cottonwoods, aad other wetland species will be planted on <br />reseeded sites. <br />5. The 2°d sentence in this paragraph is unintelligible. The <br />reclamation of the dewatering ditches needs to be clarified. <br />Z ~ d 12105321 8 I NS 1tlOHWtl31S 7Z : S S H6. T2 d3S <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.