Laserfiche WebLink
' Page 3 <br />Octot~er 4s 1990 <br />' State Pit M-90-112 <br />Dan Hernandez <br />Currently that requires action on the request within 60 days of the <br />request. Using this method, requests for bond releases are not made <br />prematurely and the acreage in the various categories is monitored. It <br />seems that if an operator has committed to a floating bond system then <br />it ie the operator's responsibility to stay within those limitations and <br />the s~;aff's responsibility to monitor the operator's compliance through <br />annua_. reports and periodic inspection. This is the way the law was <br />designed to work when it was drafted in 1976. <br />No Item 2 in your letter. <br />Item 3: Concerns about field identification of affected land <br />boundaries. <br />RESPONSE: Where the affected land boundary is not coincident with the <br />permit boundary, it is recognized that problems can occur. However, the <br />affected land boundaries of this plan were established to provide a <br />sizable margin for error beyond the mining limit defined by the extent <br />of the gravel deposit. <br />Oci the south boundary of the operation there is no problem with <br />defining the permit and affected land boundary as it is defined by a <br />fence extending along the property line. There is no reason to believe <br />the fer..ce is not in the proper place. <br />In your letter you discuss a concern over the affected land and <br />permit boundary not being coincident on the west side of the operation. <br />You must have meant the east side, as the affected land and permit <br />boundaries are coincident on the west side along 36th Lane. The <br />reclamation plan map shows the affected land boundary is at least 175 <br />feet away from the nearest altered contour resulting from the mining. <br />Broderi:;k & Gibbons feels this is a sufficient amount of buffer to allow <br />for disi;urbance beyond the limit of the deposit. Please note the <br />affected land boundary is outside of the extent of any Cascajo soils. <br />Aa state:d before, the Cascajo soil, due to natural erosion and gravel <br />deposition, actually extends beyond the gravel deposit limit. If <br />desired, when the east affected land boundary is approached it could be <br />staked, but, in our opinion, this is unnecessary because a minimum of <br />175 feet of separation is a considerable distance on this generally <br />level land, and should ba sufficient even on the steeper south hills. <br />The north affected land boundary is even further from the mining <br />limit th.sn the closest approaches along the east boundary. We <br />definitely do not feel there is any problem there. <br />