My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2014-04-01_REVISION - C1996083
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1996083
>
2014-04-01_REVISION - C1996083
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:41:44 PM
Creation date
4/1/2014 2:15:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/1/2014
Doc Name
Adequacy Response #3
From
J. E. Stover & Associates, Inc
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR77
Email Name
SLB
SB1
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.
/
5
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
Susan Burgmaier -3- March 26, 2014 <br />latest version of Map 32 submitted with TR -77 (January 7, 2014) shows topsoil <br />replacement occurring east of Topsoil Stockpile F, in the Barnes field. Under MR- <br />141, BRL indicated that no disturbance would occur in this area. Please revise <br />Map 32 to remove the topsoil replacement hatching shown on the Barnes field <br />east of Topsoil Stockpile F. <br />BOW2: Please see revised Map -32. <br />b. The January 7, 2014 version of this map also indicates a 2.6' replacement depth for <br />areas receiving Stockpile F and F1 soils. The TR -84 version indicates 1.0'. Please <br />explain the discrepancy and if necessary revise the map with the correct <br />proposed replacement depth, and (see Item 10, below) demonstrate that this <br />change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 4.06.4(2)(a). <br />BOW2: The replacement depth for the gob pile #3 area is based on the amount of topsoil <br />that is actually in stockpile, with a portion of the number being an estimated value. As a <br />general rule, when Appendix A gets submitted, the replacement depth is an estimate <br />based on what the soils survey predicts should be available for salvage. However, a soils <br />report is often times different from actual in -field conditions. The Operator is confident that <br />they salvaged all topsoil that was available for salvage, and, that the amount of material <br />actually available was closer to 1.0'. Therefore, the replacement depth of topsoil will be <br />1.0'. <br />The discrepancy between the two versions of Map -32 that were submitted were based <br />largely on the timing the map was submitted. Map -32 has been revised to show a <br />replacement depth of topsoil in the gob pile #3 area of 1.0, which should be adequate for <br />supporting the vegetation of cropland /pastureland. And, like the gob pile #2 area, nutrients <br />or other soil amendments will be applied to redistributed topsoil if necessary to support plant <br />nutrient requirements. <br />Please note, area "F" on Map -32 has been changed to "F /F1" due to the configuration <br />shown on Volume XI, Figure 1. Pile "F /F1" contains topsoil that will be replaced at the <br />UTL area and also at gob pile #3. Also, 2' contours were removed from gob pile #2 area <br />for consistency with the contour interval used on rest of map. <br />7. DRMS: The previously approved topsoil replacement depth for the Gob Pile #1/ #2/ #4 <br />disturbance area was 0.9'. BRL is proposing, on page 14 of Volume IX, to reduce the <br />replacement depth to 0.5'. Please provide additional information, in accordance <br />with Rules 2.05.4(2)(d) and 4.06.4(2)(a), to support this proposed reduction. <br />BOW2: The Operator believes they salvaged all topsoil that was available for salvage at the <br />gob pile #2 area. It is noted in Appendix A that the topsoil depth available for salvage is <br />estimated and likely different from in -field conditions. A 6" replacement depth of topsoil on <br />the gob piles is marginal, however, nutrients or other soil amendments will be applied to <br />redistributed topsoil if necessary to support plant nutrient requirements. Therefore, the <br />Operator believes the proposed topsoil replacement depth proposed is in compliance with <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.