2016-12-09_REVISION - C1981041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Brock Bowles -2- December 6, 2016 c. In section 2.05.4(2)(e)(iv) of the permit (page 14-16), it states that'all seeded areas will be mulched with certified weed free grass hay or straw.' Please clarify if mulch will be applied to this disturbance. If mulch will not be applied, please provide justification. SCC: A commitment to mulch the seeded area was added on enclosed page 14-36. d. Describe the weed control measures that will be used on this disturbance or reference where they can be found in the permit. SCC: The weed control plan is located in permit volume 5 beginning on page 14-17. 2. DRMS: SCC is requesting that Rule 4.05.2(4) be applied to this disturbance. Rule 4.05.2(4) exempts certain "disturbed areas" from needing sediment control, but SCC proposes sediment control measures in the following section, Sediment Control. It seems SCC is requesting that this disturbance not be subject to the extended liability period and have the same reclamation standard as sediment control structures outlined in Rule 3.03.1(5). Please clarify this statement. SCC: The Surface Disturbance section of the repair plan beginning on page 14-35 has been revised. The reclamation success criteria for the repair area is explained in new Appendix 14-16. 3. DRMS: Please provide a letter from the landowner stating that they concur with the proposed reclamation plan for this hydrological repair (Rule 2.05.5(1)(b)). SCC: New Appendix pages A14-5-50 through A14-5-66 have been added to address the landowner's consent for reclamation required by DRMS on the Fontanari property. A letter dated November 15, 2016 was sent to Jason Carey's attorney asking for consent, concurrence and permission to enter Carey's property for sealing the shaft in the bottom of Carey's pond. The letter requested a response within 10 business days. A response was not received within 10 days so the shaft sealing repair work was deleted from the hydrologic communication repair and reclamation plan. SCC proposed sealing the shaft over concerns the vertical shaft in Carey's pond could become a pathway for water to enter the underground workings of the Roadside Mine. At this time there is no evidence of hydrologic communication from the vertical shaft in Carey's pond to the underground workings. Additionally, the Fugro reports did not find any anomaly related to Carey's pond. The letter to Jason Carey's attorney will be included in the permit as new appendix pages A14-5-67 and A14-5-68. Questions and Comments relatinq to the packet of information dated October 27, 2016, that was submitted by James A. Beckwith, Attorney & Counselor at Law on behalf of his clients Mr. Rudolph Fontanari, Jr. and Ethel Carol Fontanari. 1. DRMS: Based upon comments submitted to the Division on October 27, 2016 by Mr. James A. Beckwith, attorney for Rudolph and Ethel Fontanari, some confusion exists on our part as to the terminology and location of certain surface features that exist in the vicinity of areas proposed under TR69 for hydrologic repairs. Figure 2 (dated April 18, 2016) of the April 28, 2016 report prepared by Fugro Consultants Inc. for Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC (HBET) denotes with a yellow symbol a feature labeled as "Air Shaft Location per Snowcap". This feature appears to lie approximately 150 feet east from the corner of the ditch recently dug by Mr. Fontanari. On the same Figure 2, a red symbol exists to the southeast of this yellow symbol. This red symbol is one of four on Figure 2 labeled "Sinkhole Surface Expressions". Please confirm that these two features are the same two features identified on Figure 14-17 (entitled "Shaft and NSA Repair Plan") of TR69 as "Air Shaft" and "Rock Pile/Sinkhole Surface Expression. In the comments submitted to the Division by Mr. Beckwith in October of 2016 is an aerial photo labeled "Fontanari Appendix X. Three features are identified in this photo. One is labeled "Sink