Laserfiche WebLink
6.4.2 EXHIBIT B -Index Mao <br />The index map is adequate as submitted. <br />6.4.3 EXHIBIT C -Pre-mining and Mining Plan Map(sl of Affected Lands <br />The pre-mining and mining plan maps submitted with the application aze adequate and in <br />fact are excellent maps depicting the existing conditions. Later on in the review, a <br />request will be made for the submittal of one additional map illustrating the hydrology of <br />the site with emphasis on drainage and containment of process and surface run-off <br />waters. <br />6.4.4 EXHIBIT D - Minin¢ Plan <br />The proposed mining plan is a great improvement over the existing plan and provides a <br />much clearer vision of how the site can be mined in a logical progression with <br />reclamation processes following closely behind. However, there aze a few items that will <br />require additional information or clarification before the plan can be approved. <br />Following aze those items. <br />-Much of the area included in both the gold placer and the gravel operations has been <br />previously disturbed. Many of these areas will be re-disturbed for both gravel and gold <br />extraction and consequently will also be reclaimed once that re-disturbance occurs. <br />When the site was initially permitted many of these azeas, particulazly those old gravel <br />piles along the northwest side of the permit, were purposely left out of the permit area so <br />as to prevent incurring a reclamation liability since they were not likely to be disturbed in <br />the process of placer mining. However, now that those areas will be tazgeted for gravel <br />mining and also for reclamation, there is a reclamation liability that will exist in those <br />azeas. Obviously the intent of including these piles in the permit area is to mine them if <br />the right market conditions exist, however, if these piles aze not re-disturbed what is the <br />reclamation plan for them? It is cleaz that the intent is not to incur the liability for these <br />previously disturbed areas prior to re-mining, therefore, it would probably be appropriate <br />to delineate these previously disturbed azeas as not being slated for reclamation unless or <br />until they are re-disturbed. This would not include azeas that have already been re- <br />disturbed via the current placer or gravel activities. By doing this, the reclamation <br />liability will remain accurate with respect to the activities proposed in this amendment. <br />Basically, by delineating these azeas we will be treating historically disturbed, but un- <br />reclaimed azeas as if they were never disturbed. <br />-There are a couple of areas located in the gold placer area that the proposed mining plan <br />does not affect but will still need to be re-graded and reclaimed. The first one is just <br />southwest of where the Farley Plant is presently located and just northeast of cut # 1. <br />There is a sizeable ridge of material located there that has been disturbed and will need to <br />be re-graded. Likewise, panels 3 and 47 do not mine through an existing highwall to <br />their northeast sides but pane146 does extend through the highwall. Should not panels 3 <br />and 47 extend a little further northeast and encompass this azea which spills over into the <br />