20061048 Ver 1_Emails_20060808 (2)

RE: Avon Sand mine variance
Subject: RE: Avon Sand mine variance
From: "Kevin Martin" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 09:45:40 -0400
To: "Tom Reeder" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Cyndi Karoly" <[e-mail]>
That sounds great, I guess the only remaining question is if the applicant for the sand mine approval is the
same as the permittee for the non-discharge permit. Looks like the hearing was non-eventful. Thanks
Kevin
From: Tom Reeder [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tue 8/8/2006 9:24 AM
To: Kevin Martin
Cc: Cyndi Karoly
Subject: Re: Avon Sand mine variance
Kevin -The variance that will be submitted for EMC consideration
tomorrow will have four conditions attached to it:
1. The sand is for DOT use only.
2. The sand will only be used by DOT on Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands.
3. The water feature created by the mining activity must remain in
place, in perpetuity.
4. The mine must be able to fully comply with all permit conditions of
its non-discharge permit at all times during and after completion of the
mining activity, with special attention paid to the requirements you
highlighted in Paragraph I.8.
We have discussed these conditions in detail with the consultant, who
has discussed these conditions with the owners and engineers of the
mining operation. They have said that they will be able to meet these
conditions of the variance.
Thanks.
Kevin Martin wrote:
> Cyndi and Tom, after reviewing the stuff from the hearing I was
> curious if the issue about the lots shown within the proposed mining
> area had been clarified and if the applicant supplied anything to
> document that the proposed pond will be in perpetuity and not future
> lots as shown on the proposed plan? Also has it been verified by the
> applicant and the developer that the proposed mine will not infringe
> on the approved reuse irrigation fields? I did not see anything in
> the new material that was sent to us for the Conference call/meeting
> tomorrow. Thanks Kevin
1 of 1 8/8/2006 2:15 PM