REV96897 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Roberts/M-77-407 adequacy 10!7/97 page 2 also included on the subsequent oversize maps, is the 40 ft x 100 ft water easement r.long the southwest side. Please provide more information about the ownership, use restrictions or setbacks, if any, etc., which may be associated with this parcel. If there are any structures contained therein, please describe them. Exhibit C -Pre-mining and Mining Plan Maps The set of maps submitted depicts atwo-phase plan for mining the ridge, which seems the best way to represent the progression of activity through this unusual site. The maps are good, but there are a few minor questions to be answered about these maps. Thank you for including a graphic scale, because the adjacent "ratio" scale does not seem correct, i.e., "] inch = 000 ft.". (This is not a problem, but could be corrected if the maps are revised.) The information related to topography, consisting of contour lines and spot elevations, do not always coincide. You mention elsewhere that these data are drawn from two sources, the recent survey of the site obviously being more exact but less complete. However, the spot elevations are not utilized for basing the mining topography on and, since they do not fit into the overall contour lines more often than not, act to confuse the issue somewhat. You might verify that these elevations are correct, and if necessary or possible, modify the depicted topography. The mining topography appears to have a small error on the north boundary line, starting at the 7000-foot contour and the error continues down from there. After sketching my version of the contours, maintaining the constant 3:1 slope, I roughly calculated that it reduces the overall minable area by two or three acres. (A different situation, and much smaller in magnitude, may exist midway along the eastern boundary which affects the aligrunent of the mining contours, possibly reducing the minable area by about one acre.) Please check the contour lines and revise them if necessary. These concerns affect both maps. Another item needing clarification is the issue of ownership of the fences. The permit boundary line appears to be located on the property line between land owned by Lary A Corp. and the named adjacent owners (exclusive of the portion along the county road). The fencelin~:s, however, do not correlate with the property lines, but appear to be both on and off of the permit area. Are these mutually owned by the parties on both sides of the fence? Is a damage agreement necessary for any of these fence sections? Though not specifically shown on the maps, I assume that the existing pit floor will initially (and perhaps well into the future) contain the material processing equipment and product stockpiles. Please provide any necessary details relating to these features, and their initial vs later locations. Please also show the planned location(s) of the topsoil stockpiles (in Phase II, for example), which are mentioned in the text, but not clearly depicted somewhere on the pit floor.