My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE111253
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE111253
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:07:50 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 8:25:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1998058
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Name
DRAFT HEARING ORDER IN THE MATTER OF JOHNSON EXCAVATION INC PN M-98-058 APPROVAL OF A 112 PERMIT APP
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.
/
11
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 />ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED <br />Diane & Thane Anderson Letter September 21, 1998 <br />1. The legal description of the Tellier Gravel Nine is incorzect. <br />2. The minim period listed in Exhibit D is 10-years, which is in conflict with the period <br />of 3 years listed in the public notice. <br />3. The statement regarding the depth of the topsoil is inconsistent in the permit. It is <br />also inconsistent on how the topsoil will be used in reclamation. <br />4. The use of the word overburden is inconsistent in the permit, sometimes including <br />topsoil and sometimes to backfill previous mine pits. <br />5. The haul road shown on Map 3 shows the length of the existing ranch road to be <br />approximately 200 feet rather than the stated length of approximately 165 feet. <br />6. The permit states that office and maintenance buildings exist and to our knowledge <br />they do not exist and do not appeaz on any plan showing existing buildings. <br />7. There is no documentation submitted with this application providing proof of <br />ownership of surface or mineral rights. The deed presented in this packet is irrelevant <br />to the ownership tights. In addition, the relevant deed on record does not grant <br />mineral ownership rights to the applicant. <br />8. It is stated that a minor amount of clean fill material from off-site may be hauled and <br />used to backfill the excavated thine'pit areas at this location. <br />9. Is the statement in this paragraph regazding "absence of slope" consistent with the <br />reclamation plan of final slope 3:1? <br />10. The statement is not cleaz on whether willows, narrowleaf cottonwoods, and other <br />wetland species vrill be planted on reseeded sites. <br />11. The 2nd sentence in this paragraph on the Reclamation plan is unintelligible. The <br />reclamation of the dewatering ditches needs to be clarified. <br />l2. Final Shoreline Configuration. We question whether the reclamation plan is adequate <br />for the wetland area. When no water is in the ponds, the surface will be muddy or dry <br />and cracked or dusty. <br />l3. Exhibit G, Water Information. The statement addresses the water quantity of our well <br />by the dewatering activities. It claims that the water supply will be unaffected <br />because the well is lower than the dewatering activities. This statement may or may <br />not be true and [he quality of the water is no[ addressed. Since the direction of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.