|
MLRB Presentation Form • • Paga 5
<br />File No. M-2001-001 -.
<br />Line Camo Pit
<br />4. !s the wild/ife statement adequate and complete?
<br />See staff response under issue 24 of DMG's Rationale for Approval Recommendation. See the
<br />attached correspondence from the DOW, dated November 8, 2000.
<br />This issue was raised in objector letter numbers 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19.
<br />5. Does the application contain an adequate weed control p/an?
<br />See staff response under issue 23 of DMG's Rationale for Approval Recommendation.
<br />This issue was raised in objector letter numbers 6, 14 and 1 8.
<br />6. Has the applicant applied for or stated his intention of applying for al/other applicab/e
<br />permits?
<br />See staff response under issues 19 and 21 of DMG's Rationale for Approval Recommendation.
<br />This issue was raised in objector letter numbers 2, 8, 15 and 18.
<br />7. is fhe reclamation p/an comp/ete and adequate?
<br />See staff response under issues 8, 1 1, 22, 42 and 43 of DMG's Rationale for Approval
<br />Recommendation.
<br />This issue was raised in objector letter numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
<br />16, 17, 18 and 20.
<br />8. is the proposed rec/amation bond adequate?
<br />See staff response under issue 25 of DMG's Rationale for Approval Recommendation.
<br />This issue was raised in objector letter numbers 1, 2, 6 and 14.
<br />9. WiU the operation create adverse impacts to water quality?
<br />See staff response under issue 12 of DMG's Rationale for Approval Recommendation.
<br />This issue was raised in objector letter numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
<br />16, 17, 18 and 20.
<br />
|