Laserfiche WebLink
to the same boundary line on approved Map 8. Third, it would appear that the scale <br />of Map 8 is not what is listed in the title block. Please examine this and respond. <br />17. Please add the sediment fence notation for SAE-3 and SAE-4 on Map 5, Facilities <br />Map, similar to what is noted on Map 14. <br />The Division has no further concerns. Terror Creek revised Map 5. <br />18. There appears to be conflicting statements in the permit application concerning the <br />quantity of topsoil that has been stockpiled at the mine site. On page 2.05-SR, the <br />estimated volume of stockpiled topsoil is given as 5243 cubic yards. However, the <br />volume of stockpiled topsoil is given as 4928 cubic yards on page 2.05-8a. Finally, <br />on the third page of the Exhibit 11 text, the volume of topsoil stockpiles is stated <br />as 4283 cubic yards, with a possibility of an additiona1645 cubic yards if the truck <br />parking lot is expanded. Please reconcile these differences and revise these pages <br />accordingly. <br />The Division has no further concerns. Terror Creek revised pages 2.05-8a and page <br />3 of Exhibit 11. <br />Rule 2.05.4. Reclamation Plan <br />19. There appears to be a discrepancy in the permit application concerning the number <br />of acres that have been disturbed and which will be topsoiled for reclamation. The <br />text on page 2.05-8a states that there are 6.8 acres to be retopsoiled. On the third <br />text page of Exhibit 11, the figure of 6.8 acres is also used for the retopsoiling <br />acreage. However, when the acreage to be retopsoiled was digitized off of Map 4, <br />Pre- & Post- Disturbance Land Use, a value of about 11.7 acres was obtained. <br />Please explain this apparent difference. <br />Terror Creek supplied a revised Map 4 and stated that only 9.04 acres are to be <br />topsoiled. The Division examined revised Map 4 and has some concerns. First, the <br />scale of revised Map 4, 1 inch equals 50 feet, does not seem to be correct. Second, <br />comparison of the approved Map 4 with the revised Map 4 shows that the permit <br />boundary on revised Map 4 needs to be expanded [o include the railroad siding. <br />Third, comparison of the approved Map 4 with the revised Map 4 shows that the <br />disturbed area boundary on the revised Map 4 does not include the material storage <br />area in the northeast corner of the permit area, nor does it include the railroad <br />6 <br />