My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-08-10_PERMIT FILE - M2017032
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2017032
>
2018-08-10_PERMIT FILE - M2017032
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2021 4:29:57 AM
Creation date
8/10/2018 4:46:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2017032
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
8/10/2018
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Environment, Inc.
To
DRMS
Email Name
AME
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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
Deep Cut LLC- 22 West Pit Page 5 <br /> Adequacy response 02 Permit # M-2017-032 <br /> stockpiled in the setback areas around the area being mined to reduce the push distance <br /> to less then 100 feet. No riprap placement is planned for lake shore areas. <br /> 6) The revised Reclamation Timetable does not correlate with the two reclamation plan <br /> maps provided. For starters, the Options appear to be reversed on the maps from what <br /> they should be, given that Option 1 should include leaving the northeastern pre-law area <br /> undisturbed and a smaller pond. On the reclamation plan maps,the industrial area is <br /> shown to be 3.78 acres in size, while on the timetable, it is shown as 3.75 acres (a slight <br /> difference). Also, on the reclamation plan maps, the pond size is shown to be 22.12 acres <br /> in size for what should be Option 1, while on the timetable, it is Ihown as 29.33 acres for <br /> Option 1. Additionally, on the reclamation plan maps, the pond size is shown to be 29.03 <br /> acres for Option 2, while on the timetable, it is shown as 22.12 acres. Finally,the <br /> timetable shows a larger undisturbed acreage for Option 2, which should be the reverse, <br /> as Option 1 would disturb less land. <br /> Thanks for the information. These items have been corrected as a result of our review of <br /> the maps. <br /> Please correct any discrepancies between the acreages given in the reclamation timetable <br /> and the acreages shown on the correlated reclamation plan maps, and be sure the Options <br /> are listed correctly. <br /> As I noted above the maps filed with the first adequacy response were a mess and mixed <br /> up. They have been changed so that it is clear that Map Exhibit F-1 is Option 1 and Map <br /> Exhibit F-2 is Option 2. The Reclamation Timetable has been corrected to match the <br /> maps. <br /> 7) Please be informed, Rule 3.1.5(9) states that an operator may backfill structural fill <br /> material generated within the permitted area into an excavated pit within the permit area <br /> as provided for in the permit. [This means all backfilling activities must be accounted for <br /> in the permit, even if the material is generated on site.] <br /> The inert materials that have been onsite from pre-law times will remain undisturbed <br /> until/if mining reaches them then they will be disposed of property. <br /> If an operator intends to backfill inert structural fill generated outside of the approved <br /> permit area, the operator must provide notice (in the form of a Technical Revision) of any <br /> proposed backfill activity not identified in the approved reclamation plan. [Note that <br /> Technical Revisions are required for any proposed activities not already authorized in an <br /> approved permit. In this case, the activities could be incorporated into the permit prior to <br /> approval.] <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.