My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2021-12-29_PERMIT FILE - M2021009 (9)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2021009
>
2021-12-29_PERMIT FILE - M2021009 (9)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2024 5:55:41 PM
Creation date
12/29/2021 10:45:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2021009
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/29/2021
Doc Name Note
Cover Letter
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Lewicki & Associates/Young Ranch Resource, LLC
To
DRMS
Email Name
AME
MAC
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Modifications to the mine plan remove the need for culvert modifications until after phase 1 is <br /> completed. Additionally, please refer to the notarized agreement between Central City and the <br /> YYR detailing impacts to Central City structures. <br /> 4. On pages E-2 to E-4, the applicant has committed to practices for reducing erosion <br /> (roughening, ripping, hydroseeding, mulch, and wood straw), but given the fact that <br /> reclaimed slopes will not be compacted(on page G-4 the application states that lack of <br /> compaction will create lower runoff conditions), there is a higher likelihood of erosion. <br /> Therefore, the application should include a commitment to repair any rills that develop <br /> and to use additional Best Management Practices, including straw bales and wattles <br /> (aka erosion logs), as appropriate. The application should also state if access roads will <br /> be built on reclaimed slopes to assist in rill repair. <br /> Please see the revised Exhibit G where statements of non-compaction are now removed. <br /> Slopes will be stabilized through track compaction and roughening and ripping prior to seeding <br /> and mulching. The Young Ranch Resource commits to promptly repairing any unanticipated <br /> erosional features that form within the reclamation areas. Additionally, the Young Ranch <br /> Resource commits to using Best Management Practices that will be outlined in the site SWMP <br /> and CDPS to mitigate stormwater runoff and erosion. Due to the low final slope angle of the <br /> WRL, no roads will be built to remain in final reclamation; instead, tracked or on foot access will <br /> be utilized for remedial reclamation activities. <br /> 5. The applicant should state if there are known seeps or springs in the vicinity of the WRL, <br /> and (if so) provide some detail on location, size, and other pertinent information related <br /> to these features. <br /> Seep features are detailed in the Appendix 7 Aquatic Resource Delineation. <br /> 6. As required by Rule 3.1.5(3), the mining plan needs to include a detailed discussion of <br /> the practices that will be employed along the ridgetop, at the southern and western sides <br /> of the quarry, to prevent the transport of sediment onto downgradient undisturbed areas. <br /> Specify if diversion ditches, vegetated berms, straw bales, or other BMPs will be used. <br /> This is especially necessary during the mining phase of the operation, but should also be <br /> addressed for the post-mining and post-reclamation phases. <br /> Safety and storm water berms will be constructed along the active mining areas borders. These <br /> berms will prevent water from leaving the disturbed area and are shown on Appendix 1 maps. <br /> The quarry is graded, both in active mining and reclamation phases, to capture and allow for <br /> sedimentation of any runoff from disturbed areas. <br /> 7. On page G-1 there appears to be a discrepancy. There is text regarding "deep organic <br /> litter and sandy loam substrate"onsite that has "moderate to high"permeability. <br /> However, the text also indicates that the site has mostly group D soils (which means low <br /> permeability). Furthermore, page D-10 (bottom of page) discusses the lack of topsoil <br /> onsite. Please explain these apparent discrepancies. <br /> The permit narrative exhibits have been revised to remove any potential discrepancies. True <br /> topsoil is absent from the site; please refer to the responses to Division questions 15, 20, and <br /> December 2021 31 M Lewicki&Associates <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.