PERMFILE43206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. n conformance wi Rule 6.4.4(d), please arify the maximum dt turbo t ughout the life o e operation. Such ma imum disturbance sh uld dirt bances assuming n ar vertical walls, volu e of overburden to b g topsoi o be salvaged and . ockpiled, lengths of it walls that have bee contours, engths of backfille & graded pit walls~rtd/or acreages of aff topsoiled, reage of land requ 'ng revegeta[ion, aril the plan[ site area. needed to ca ulate an appropria and accurate reclamation cos[. As an indicate the a ire affected land ac eage will be disturbed and provide a to reclaim such disturbance. Please address. 6.4.5 EXHIBIT E -Reclamation Plan ice ro be expect d at any onA include areas and volumes of merated and stock 'led, volum backfilled and grade to fini\ [ed land that have b n uch maximum distur ante is al ernative, the applican may eclamation cost estimate adeou 8. The appliant indicates on page 14 that there will be excess overburden generated during [he mining process. The Division requests that [he applicant clarify the volume of overburden needed for backfilling and grading to produce the desired reclamation contours at a time of maximum disturbance as defined in item 7 above. An itemized cos[ for backfilling and grading of such volume should be included in the Reclamation Cost Estimate, Exhibit L. (In the event there is' an excess of overburden generated, the applicant can either provide an additional reclamation cost for backfilling the excess into the pit area(s) or commit to stockpiling no more than the volume of overburden needed for backfill and grading during a maximum disturbance scenario). Please respond. 9. The applicant indicates on page 14 that there will be excess topsoil generated during the mining process. The Division requests that the applicant clarify the volume of topsoil needed for reclamation at a time of maximum disturbance as defined in item 7 above. Please respond. 10. The applicant had a jurisdictional wetlands delineation performed on the Green/Croissant Property in July ?000 by Savage & Savage, Inc.. The results of the delineation indicate that jurisdictional wetlands account for 30.7 acres and waters of the U.S. account for 5.51 acres within the proposed permit area. Review of the Reclamation Plan Map, Exhibit F shows a reclaimed wetland of 8.3 acres, a potential wetland enhancement area (also shown on Exhibit C as a potential wetland mitigation area) south of Cell 3, a potential wetland enhancement area south of Cell 4, and a potenial shelf for emergent wetland mitigation along the west edge of Cell 4. The applicant also indicates on pages 6 & 7 that some wetlands presently existing in Cells 3 & 4 are believed to have been caused by improper maintenance of [ailwater ditches, that these ditches' will be improved during initial mining operations, and that a new delineation may occur prior to mining these areas. The Division is in agreement with the applicant [ha[ a 404 Permit (or other permit as required by the Corps of Engineers) would be obtained prior to mining in any existing jurisdictional wetlands. However, the information referenced above is somewhat confusing. The Division has several concerns with respect to mining within existingjuris'dic[ional wetlands and wetlands reclamation within the permit area. First, the applicant should clarify the location and acreage of existing jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S. that will be disturbed during the mining operation. The applicant may revise Exhibit C-2 or C-3 to show the location of such wetlands and waters (30.7 & 5.51 acres) as mapped in the July ?000 Savage & Savage, Inc. wetland delineation. Or, the applicant may commit to submittal of a revised wetlands