Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4 (l)): The application proposes a Revegetation Success Criteria which is in <br />conflict with Rule 3.1.10 (I) which establishes the standard by which revegetation success under the Minerals <br />Program is determined. The Division is unwilling to accept the proposed Success Criteria. <br />Please indicate a withdrawal of the proposed Revegetation Success Criteria and a commitment to comply <br />with the requirements of Rule 3.3.10 (I). <br />EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4 (I) (b)): The Division understands that the proposed maximum gradient of the <br />reclaimed slopes will be 2:1. The Division is also lead to believe, from the proposed mine plan, that the fmal side <br />slopes of the pit will be the result of mining down to a 2:1 slope and that no back filling of high walls around the <br />outside margins of the pit will be necessary to their reduction. <br />Please confirm that the final side slopes of the pit in Phases 1 and 2 will be maintained at 2:1 during the <br />mining operation and that no back filling will be necessary to attain these fmal slopes. <br />EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4 (I) (c) (iv)): T'he proposed reclaimed margins of the pit are to slope at 2: I but <br />such slopes ordinazily do not allow the use of a grass drill. The application does not include any acknowledgement <br />of this or any proposed alternative seeding method. <br />Please commit to broadcasting the proposed seed mix and doubling the proposed seed rates in the event a <br />grass drill cannot be used to seed the site. <br />EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4 (1) (f)): Although the Division notmally does not consider proposals to separate <br />110 operations into mining phases for bonding proposes, the Division recognizes the practicality of the proposed <br />mine and reclamation plans. The Division will accept the phased mine and reclamation plans and the bond amount <br />proposed if certain commitments are made by the applicant. <br />Please commit to clearly marking the boundary between Phases 1 and 2 and not to engage in stripping of <br />subsoil and topsoil from any part of Phase 2 unless that material is dvectly transported, without stockpiling, to <br />Phase 1 and immediately employed in the reclamation of the mining related disturbance in Phase 1. <br />EXHIBIT E-MINE PLAN MAP (Rule 6.3.5 (2) (b)): Although normally required, there is no indication <br />on the map that Mr. Mengatti is the owner of record of the surface of the area to be affected by the mining <br />operation and the owner of the substance to be mined or of the owner(s) of record of the surface of land within 200 <br />feet of the permit area. The Division recognizes that Mr. Mengatti has been identified on Page 2 of the application <br />as the surface owner and owner of subsurface rights to the permit area. It has, however, not been clearly stated if <br />Mr. Mengatti is also the owner of the surface of all land within 200 feet of [he permit area. <br />As indicated earlier in this review, please specify if Mr. Mengatti owns all surface land within 200 feet of <br />the proposed permit area. If not, please provide an Exhibit A Map or a revised Exhibit E-Mine Plan Map with the <br />adjacent owners and thew property identified. <br />NOTE: The Decision date for this application is April 7, 2000. Please respond completely to the adequacy issues <br />identified above enough in advance of that date for the Division to review your response, deal with any remaining <br />problems and consider approval of the application at that time. If you cannot respond by that time, please provide a <br />written waiver of your right to a decision on that date in order that the permitting process be allowed to continue. A <br />permit will not be issued until all adequacy issues are satisfactorily addressed. If you have any questions on the <br />above, please contact me. <br />Sincerely, <br />J a,>..~, C S-~trEu~ <br />James C. Stevens <br />Sr. Specialist <br />