Laserfiche WebLink
6.4.3 EXHIBIT C -Pre-minine and Minim? Plan Maas) of Affected Lands <br />The pre-mining map(s) aze required to have the name and location of all creeks within the <br />affected azea. The map presented with the application did not have the names of the <br />affected creeks labeled. Please provide this information. Also, in accordance with Rule <br />6.2.1 (e), the acceptable range of map scales shall be no lazger than 1 inch=50 feet or <br />smaller than linch=600 feet. The scale of the maps presented are linch=1000 feet. <br />Please revise as appropriate. <br />6.4.4 EXHIBIT D - Minins Plan <br />Under (C) of the proposed mining plan, the narrative indicates that processing water may <br />become necessary at some point in the future, however, under Exhibit G (water <br />information) you have indicated that there will be no water requirements for <br />development, mining, etc. These statements aze inconsistent and need to be clarified. <br />This and other potential hydrologic impacts are discussed further under Exhibit (G). <br />A question that azose during the pre-hearing conference was the proposed location of the <br />permit boundazy. As I understand the mining plan, the gravel terrace within the proposed <br />boundary is the t~et Df the miming opeIatiArl, however, the nnrthwPCtern corner of the <br />permit area is located well into the extended drainage feature bordering the west side of <br />the terrace. Furthermore, the entire western boundary appears to be located in the <br />drainage and the mine plan map does include this low-lying area within proposed mine <br />phases 1-6. Please clazify whether any mining or reclamation activities are slated to <br />occur in this bottom area. Although it does not appear that there is a perennial stream in <br />this drainage, there does seem to be a small irrigation network consisting of an earthen <br />diversion structure and a conveyance ditch leading to the north, and perhaps a confluence <br />with the drainage on the north side of the pernut azea, indicating that it may at least be an <br />------ ephemerZft$ese unga ion ea es were ac rve, ey wou a consiJaered- <br />structures requiring protection or replacement under Exhibit S. The hydrologic aspects of <br />the two drainages are addressed in further detail under Exhibit G. <br />6.4.5 EXHIBIT E -Reclamation Plan <br />The baseline soils information indicates that anywhere from 6-11 inches of topsoil is <br />available for use in reclamation. However, the application commits to only replacing 4-7 <br />inches before re-seeding. The application should commit to replacing ALL available <br />topsoil on the site with a range of 6-12 inches. The sale of other subsoil type materials is <br />allowed and should not impact the reclamation plan as long as ALL available topsoil is <br />properly salvaged, set-aside, and replaced as appropriate. <br />6.4.6 EXHIBIT F -Reclamation Plan Mau <br />The reclamation plan map should provide more detail with respect to final sloping. <br />Specifically, the azea northwest of County Road ] OS and adjacent to CR 105 is not well <br />defined with respect to final contours. It appeazs that the northwest permit boundary line <br />