Laserfiche WebLink
Response to Technical Adec~y Review, 19 March, 2001 • Page 4 <br />Item no. 11 Issue: Implementation of reclamation to meet Rule 3.1 <br /> re uirements <br />CommenHdeficiency Please describe how the plan will be implemented to meet each specific <br /> re uirement <br />Res onse <br />Exhibit E has been completely revised to explicitly identify each requirement of Rule 6.4.5, including compliance with <br />Rule 3.1. Because there is considerable overlap of the various items, there is some overlap and reference within the <br />Exhibit, as well as to other exhibits. In particular, the items specified by Rule 6.4.5.(1) and Rule 6.4.5.(2)f. appear to <br />be identical, and better addressed in the order given in Rule 6.4.5.(2) a through e; by the time those items had been <br />addressed, there appeared to be no need to specifically address the items in Rule 6.4.5.(1)I Rule 6.4.5.(2)f, as these <br />had alread been covered. <br />Item no. 12 Issue: Trees and shrubs <br />Commentldeficienc Pleases ecif t es and uantities <br />Res onse <br />As discussed, Exhibits E and J have been revised to show that the trees and shrubs are part of the County's post- <br />mining, post-reclamation landscaping requirements, and that the Applicant does not wish to have these part of the <br />reclamation under the 112 Permit. Therefore, we believe that there is no need to s i es and uantities. <br />Item no. 13 Issue: Slo es of 1 H:1 V <br />Commentldeficienc Please clarif statement on a e 15 about maximum slo es <br />Res onse <br />The information on slopes above and below water level has been rewritten to clarify this matter. There a2 no <br />locations above the waterline where we expect to have post-reclamation slopes of greater than 3H:1 V, based on the <br />amount of bac~ll and soil material believed to be available. <br />Item no. 14 Issue: Im acts on wells <br />Comment/deficiency Please provide an appropriate hydrologic demonstration to show what <br /> affects <br />Res onse <br />A study of well drawdown has been prepared and has been incorporated into Exhibit G. This discusses potential <br />impacts on the groundwater system, including wells and riparian vegetation, and demonstrates that there is no <br />reasonable potential of adverse impact. (As a result, six additional pages have been added to Exhibit G, numbered <br />Exhibit Pa a 27-A throw h 27-E, to avoid havin to renumber other exhibit a es. <br />Item no. 15 Issue: Gravit drain i e and surface laid i e <br />Comment/deficienc Please rovide additional details for these items <br />Res onse <br />The requested additional detail has been incorporated into the revision of Exhibit G, including detail drawing of the <br />inlet (catch basin) and the outtall, and explaining the role of the drain pipe (actually a form of storm sewer) and <br />ossible surface-laid i es. <br />Item no. 16 Issue: CDPS stormwater ermit <br />Comment/deficienc Please clari whether a ermit has been obtained or a lied for. <br />Res onse <br />The statement on page 25 was correct but poorly worded. Mining will not commence unless coverage under a CDPS <br />permit has been obtained. That permit coverage has been applied for; a copy of the application was provided to the <br />Division. <br />