PERMFILE111671 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

s Please provide copies of the Exhibit CPre-Mining and Soils and Vegetation Maps with complete and accurate property ownership indicated. EXHIBIT C (RULE 6.4.3(8)): The only permanent or man-made structures that appear, from the maps included with this Exhibit, to be within 200 feet of the land to be affected by the proposed operation are I) the ~e_ ,r1' indicated "unimproved" private road, which is nevertheless apparently adequate for use by the applicant for access D~' to the operation and for hauling of material from the site and 2) the fences to the north and east of the proposed ~Gt~ permit area. The ownership of these fences and the access road is not indicated on any map included under Exhibit ~} l~ C. Please provide a revised Exhibit C Map that includes iden[ifyine the owners of the existing private road and the fences that lie within 200 feet of the area to be affected by the operation. EXHIBIT D (RULE 6.4.4(e)): The proposed Mining Plan indicates that "Backsloping will be done while mining at 3H:1 V, which will eliminate the need to backfill the side walls of the pit". The Division is unsure what backsloping entails, but the Division is familiar with the applicant's previous mining procedure at this site and is, therefore, doubtful that it is actually the applicant's intention to mine down to and leave a 3H:1 V slope. Since the proposed plan also says tha[ "after an area is mined", the backsloping and contouring of the side walls and pit floor will be done, etc., the Division will interpret this to actually mean that the mining and backsloping will be carried on separately, and backsloping may, by necessity, include backfilling the highwalls as well as the pit with CMG stockpiled overburden. (See Exhibit L review below.) Furthermore, since the Mining Plan does not specify how much area will be mined before the backsloping, etc. takes place, the Division will assume that [hat there may be a sizable separation in time between the mining and the backsloping, etc. In order that the site be properly bonded, the Division has assumed that as much as 20 acres of excavation, a figure based on the estimate provided by the applicant with the Mining Plan, will exist before backsloping, etc. occurs. This figure is used as input into the Division's estimate of the cost of reclamation at the site which is covered in greater detail with its review of Exhibit L and is also attached to this letter. (See Exhibit L review below and attached materials.) Please commit to having no more than 20 acres of excavation and unreduced highwall prior to backsloping/backfllling the walls of the pit to 3H:1 V. EXHIBIT D (RULE 6.4.4(e)): The Exhibit D narrative indicates that the proposed operation will not be phased but specifies that total disturbance will not exceed 35 acres at any one time and that the 35 acres of disturbance will be covered by a "floating bond". The Division assumes that the applicant's unwillingness to fix the boundaries of what would otherwise be considered a mining phase is for the purpose of retaining flexibility in locating the various components of the operation. Since the configuration of the 35 acre mining phase will apparently vary over time, please commit to ~~ maintain markers for the boundaries of the affected area as it changes shape, markers that will be adequate to demonstrate to the Division, at any time, that there are no more than 20 acres of excavated area and no more than 35 acres of mining rela[ed disturbance. EXHIBIT E (RULE 6.4.5(1)): The affected, i.e. disturbed, area indicated in the Exhibit E narrative is stated to be 80 acres. The affected area indicated on the Exhibit C Mining Map is specified in the map legend to be p~ 71 acres +/- which is significantly less. Please provide a correct figure and a correspondingly revised Exhibit E narrative or Exhibit C Mining Map. EXHIBIT E (RULE 6.4.5(2)(f)): The Exhibit E narrative makes reference to fertilization and mulching as recommended by the "SCD". There is no information included with the application or exhibit as to what these Ord recommendations are. (The Division has made some assumptions in its estimate of the reclamation cost included with its review of Exhibit L, but these can be changed.) Please provide the "SCD" recommendations as to fertilization and mulchine. EXHIBIT F (RULE 6.4.6): The map that comprises this Exhibit includes the same deficiencies as those cited for maps in Exhibit C earlier in this review. There tc no property owner listed as corresponding to hexagonal b~ symbol 9; the property owner listed for hexagonal symbol 8, according to the deeds included under Exhibit O. should be Ed Pino; and the description of the Permit Boundary Traverse does not agree with tha[ described in the Exhibit A narrative.