Laserfiche WebLink
c. Objectors have asked fora 10-foot maximum depth of excavation or 2 feet <br />above the water table which ever is higher. (Wiesner, Teague, Shirey, Croeber) <br />e. Objectors question soil erosion control measures as inadequate. (McIntosh, <br />Ward) <br />Objectors request detailed study or information on gravel deposits to be made <br />public. (Wiesners, Hubbard, Teague, Triech, Shirey) <br />g. Objectors noted that reclamation costs estimates in Exhibit L are inadequate. <br />(McIntosh, Ward, Schneider) <br />h. Objector suggests that independent consultant do the reclamation costs <br />estimate, have inflationary adjustments and annual review. (Ward) <br />Objectors question Exhibit K Climate adequacy (McIntosh, Ward) <br />j. Objectors question Exhibit H Wildlife adequacy (McIntosh; Ward) <br />k. Objector questions the applicant s timetable for mining. (Ward) <br />Objectors question Reclamation Plan; timetable, phasing and soil replacement, <br />weeds, excess material, slope and floor vegetation. (Ward, Wiesner) <br />m. Objector request Mine and Reclamation Maps show locations of process <br />facilities, stockpiles, concurrent reclamatign and finished reclamation by phase. <br />(Ward) <br />n: Objectors note that the application does not address secondary containment for <br />hazardous materials and / or waste. (Ward, Wiesner) <br />o. Objectors question whether there is enough fill material on site to accomplish <br />reclamation and the statement that excess materials maybe sold by the <br />operator. (Ward) <br />p. The Office of the State Engineer noted the following issues: <br />i) The proposed operation does not anticipate exposing groundwater <br />ii) The proposed mine may have a potential to impact existing water <br />rights <br />iii) The operator will need to provide evidence that water used is covered <br />under.permitted or decreed rights. <br />iv) Impoundments may impact other water rights and require <br />augmentation or supply plan. <br />3 <br />