Laserfiche WebLink
Comment 10: Referring to the phrase "and eristing previous disturbances are not part of the affected <br />acreage ", please clarify whether or not "existing previous disturbances" include those areas disturbed <br />under P-1986-023. If this is the case, these areas must be clearly identified on the N01 maps and <br />photographic documentation provided so the Division can clearly separate previous P-1986-023 <br />disturbances from new disturbances when final release is requested for this new N01, should it be <br />approved <br />Response: The notation was intended to refer to pre -law disturbances of which there are many. <br />They include roads, old pits, mines, waste rock piles, dumps, survey lines cuts through timber, cattle and <br />wildlife trails, and areas that have been used by campers and hunters. Many of these disturbances are <br />mining related while others are not. The majority of the disturbances are readily visible on aerial photo <br />and satellite images. An example would be an old road or the discovery pit for an 1896 patented claim. <br />These areas are pre -law and thus not subject to bond. In contrast, another example would be that a short <br />road was constructed across a grassy knoll that had already been reclaimed from the 1986 NOI. This <br />disturbance would be part of this new NOI, would require reclamation, and thus be covered under the <br />current associated bond. As discussed above in Comment 6a, I believe that there are no remaining <br />disturbances associated P-1986-023, so any new disturbances would tie to the 2016 NOI and come under <br />that bond. It is your choice on whether the prospector can move forward under the existing 1986 NOI, or <br />if you want him to replace it with the 2016 NOI. <br />Financial Warranty <br />Comment: Please note the Division will estimate a cost to reclaim the site based on the application <br />and your response to the deficiencies described above. The financial warranty may or may not exceed <br />$2,000 per acre of affected land depending on the Division cost estimate. Please be reminded that the <br />proposed prospecting operations identified in the current modification application may not commence <br />until these deficiencies are addressed and the bond is submitted and approved by the Division. <br />Response: If what you said in your Comment 6 is actually true, then let's forget this new NOI and <br />Mr. Barker will proceed under the old 1986 NOI as he had originally intended. Conversely, if what you <br />wrote i% not accurate, we are at almost 8 months into this process and we have held him up for over half <br />of the 2016 summer season. At this point, it makes little difference which NOI we use, but let's try to <br />support one of our few remaining mining people, instead of trying to hold him up even Ionger. Get on <br />with the bond calculation so we can get to the end of this. <br />