Laserfiche WebLink
(2). the plat map. <br />B. Has the Applicant accurately indicated the projected amount from each of the <br />sources of water to supply the project water requirements? (Rule 6.4.7(4)) <br />C. Will areas outside of the affected land be protected from slides or damage <br />(including flooding) occurring during mining operation and reclamation? (34- <br />32.5-116 (4)(i)) <br />D. Is the geotechnical stability exhibit adequate to address potential off-site impacts <br />to the cliff face and to the underground workings? (Rule 6.5) <br />E. Has the Applicant described how potential impacts to the prevailing hydrologic <br />balance of the Carbon Irrigation ditch will be minimized? (Rule 3.1.6) <br />8. ` ~"Issue 7(A): Accuracy and Completeness of Application Information, Rules 1.4.1(3), <br />6.4.5(2)(b), 6.4.3(b) and (g). Rule 1.4.1(3) requires that all information submitted in an <br />application be complete and accurate. Rule 6.4.5(2)(b) requires an applicant to compare <br />the proposed post-mining land use with other land uses in the vicinity and to adopted <br />local and state ]and use plans. As stated in the Division's "Rationale for <br />Recommendation of Approval" ("Rationale"), the Applicant proposes apost-mining land <br />use, rangeland, which is compatible with other adjacent uses. Other adjacent uses include <br />rangeland, reclaimed mine sites, ranches, rural, agricultural and residential. The site is <br />adjacent to an active shale mine, The Application describes the affected lands as <br />undeveloped rangeland, which is supported by vegetation information supplied by the <br />Natural Resources Conservation Service Range Site Description. On balance, the <br />evidence shows the Applicant undertook the proper comparison of the proposed post- <br />mining land use with other land uses in the vicinity. As explained in the Rationale, Delta <br />n.,_....., o-,... rR ~nnc not <br />