Laserfiche WebLink
reviewing the rest of the maps and text and is an important distinction. Please provide <br />clazification for this legal description. <br />6.4.2 EXHIBIT B -Index Maa <br />No comment at this time. <br />6.4.3 EXHIBIT C -Pre-minin¢ and Mining Plan Map(s) of Affected Lands <br />The pre-mine plan map appears to show the property boundary and the permit boundary <br />as one in the same. However, on the mine plan map, it appears that the permit boundary <br />is only located on the stage one azea along with the mining limits. As indicated under <br />Exhibit A, this will need to be clarified for several reasons. It appears that the intent is to <br />include the entire property within the "permit area" now and only stage I in the "affected <br />land area". Either way, the designated permit areas should be the same for both maps and <br />the affected land area should cleazly be designated on the mine plan map. This is <br />obviously a very important distinction due to the baseline or permit requirements of areas <br />proposed to be disturbed under this application and for the purpose of accurately <br />calculating the financial warranty. Furthermore, as discussed under Exhibit N, it appears <br />that there is a problem with the legal right to enter and conduct mining operations on <br />either azea. All of these issues need to be cleared up and all of the maps need to show the <br />same permit area, affected land area and property boundaries. These features then need <br />to correspond to the legal right to enter documents and associated legal descriptions for <br />those documents. <br />6.4.4 EXHIBIT D - Mining_Plan <br />The overall concept of the mining plan appears to be reasonable, however, there are <br />several concerns that have been identified by the division that will need to be addressed <br />in more detail. Much of the discussion included in this exhibit may also apply to Exhibits <br />E through I as well as the associated maps. <br />TOPSOIL <br />The amount of topsoil to be stripped and stockpiled and the locations of the stockpiles <br />was not clearly stated in the text of the application. It was stated that topsoil would be <br />stripped and stockpiled for later use in reclamation and that visual screening berms would <br />be selectively constructed. From review of the reclamation plan, it states that 6 inches of <br />topsoil is planned for replacement over final graded areas. However, review of the soils <br />information indicates from 4 to 48 inches of topsoil is available over the entire area to be <br />disturbed, with typical depths of approximately 12 inches. It would appeaz that of 112 <br />acres included in the affected area, approximately 80 is slated for full-scale mining. <br />Assuming an average topsoil depth of one foot, this would provide approximately <br />130,000 cubic yards of topsoil. The reclamation plan calls for replacing 6 inches of <br />topsoil over 22 acres once mining is completed. This would require 17,500 cubic yards of <br />