Laserfiche WebLink
Deep Cut LLC - 22 West Pit Page 12 <br /> Adequacy response 01 Permit # M-2017-032 <br /> I added a paragraph to Exhibit G text to address the issue. In Exhibit M I added a point <br /> addressing the need or lack of need for a CDPS (NPDES) permit and provide revised <br /> copies of both exhibits for the file. <br /> 28) Please provide the following corrections for the Exhibit G—Well Map: <br /> Corrections were made to the map as you suggested below. Map Exhibit G -Well Map <br /> has been revised to add a 200 foot line and take the blue line off. The blue line was a 600 <br /> foot line used when doing research for the well permit application that I forgot to removed. <br /> A legend was added and the Arkansas River was labeled. <br /> a. Either label or provide a legend that explains the line drawn around the proposed permit area, <br /> colored blue with the number 6 repeated. Does this line represent a 600 foot offset from the proposed <br /> permit boundary? In the water information text, the applicant states this map shows wells located <br /> within 200 feet of the proposed boundary. However, this blue line clearly exceeds the 200 foot offset. <br /> b. Either label or provide a legend that explains the area outlined in purple. The Division understands <br /> this to be the proposed permit boundary, but it should be clearly labeled as such on the map. <br /> c. Revise the symbol used to indicate well locations as it is difficult to see against the background <br /> graphics. Perhaps filling the symbol background with white or yellow would be sufficient. Also,please <br /> be sure to label or provide in a legend an explanation of what the symbol represents. <br /> d. Label the Arkansas River. <br /> Exhibit L —Reclamation Costs (Rule 6.4.12): <br /> 29) On page 62 of the application, the applicant states the bond estimate was based on the worst case <br /> scenario when it would be most expensive to reclaim the site, with no more than 11.90 acres needing <br /> reclamation at any time. Please correlate this scenario with a mining phase, and be sure it is depicted in <br /> an Exhibit C —Mining Plan Map. <br /> Because of the way the mine will develop with mining starting on the west side and then <br /> moving to the east, the worst case scenario for the first 10 years or so is actually when <br /> mining was just started on the east side of the Old Plant Site area after the small lake <br /> divider is removed and the entire working face stretched across the new lake finger. As <br /> part of the reworking of Exhibit L I have prepared Map Exhibit L - Bond Map to show this <br /> time period. <br /> As a recap the Old Plant Site area has no growth medium or soil since it was used as an <br /> Industrial area prior to 1977. The banks therefor will be left as gravel slopes that only need <br /> grading. The working face will not exceed 350 feet and any slopes that have reached their <br /> final location (north and south sides of the new cut) will be kept graded 3h to 1 v or flatter <br /> as mining progresses. At this time the old dirt pile will not be affected so no reclamation is <br /> needed on that area. The east and north banks of the lake will not be redisturbed so they <br /> do not need reclamation. <br /> 30) The applicant proposes having no more than 350 feet of shoreline requiring sloping at anytime. Based <br /> on the Exhibit F—Reclamation Plan Map submitted, the Division estimates a maximum shoreline of <br /> approximately 5,350 feet to be created at full pond expansion. Please depict the scenario where no <br />