Laserfiche WebLink
<br />M-91-047/CN-Ol First adequacy letter <br />1 1 /25/98 <br />page 3 <br />contours or discrete spot elevations be generated and provided? It would also be clearer to have <br />represented the existing vs proposed topography either on separate maps or by different <br />darknesses or symbols. Please contact me to discuss these ideas.) <br />There are two areas totalling about two acres shown on the Phase 2 map, which lie along the <br />proposed eastern boundary and are presently wooded, and which appear to be in the path of <br />earthmoving activities. Are trees to be removed prior to topsoil stockpiling or grading there, or <br />will you plan to work between the trees and avoid disturbing them? (I will mention these areas <br />again under Exhibit F.) <br />The Exhibit A map, an Exhibit D reference to the "current lower pit" (and existing 1991 DMG file <br />photos) indicate there is an existing pit or pond in the north part of the bottomland proposed to be <br />added. The Phase 1 map shows a few roughly concentric contours, indicating one or two pits (or <br />are they hills'?) but there is no clearly labeled pit or pond there. Please provide some information <br />about this feature. If there is presently a water surface, please indicate whether its evaporative <br />losses are subject to augmentation under the State Engineer's Office authority. If appropriate <br />please inquire about the need for any plan or permit now. <br />Exhibit D -Mining Plan <br />You have provided drawings and description of the vegetated earthen berm to be constructed <br />along the highway fence. This feature, though not required by DMG, appears to be part of <br />satisfying the county regulations. It may be removed or remain permanently onsite, with the only <br />requirement of ours being that the reclamation within the footprint of the berm conform to the <br />reclamation plan. The slope gradients and rangeland revegetation will be the evaluated factors. If <br />landscape rocks or trees and shrubs are added to the scheme (and I applaud the extra effort) they <br />will not be criteria forjudging successful reclamation. However, something within our <br />jurisdiction is the berm's outslope stability; we will inspect for sloughing or sedimentation outside <br />of the permit boundary or damage to the fence. <br />The phased mining plan appears to be well organized and clearly described in this exhibit. A few <br />things are missing, however, which I will name below. <br />Please clarify the issue of which ditches/canals will be moved or eliminated, and ~vho the owners <br />are. Each of these stntctures (and all other onsite structures) must be detailed in Exhibit S, which <br />must include a notarized damage agreement. Please note that present disturbance is already <br />within 200 feet of these structures, and will encroach even closer during the first phase. The <br />damage agreements or engineering evaluations must be prepared and submitted now. <br />Is there any concern for canal stability, access or sediment load, for its proposed relocated <br />position? It will be located on the slope below a significant amount of newly sloped land with <br />