My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV03787
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV03787
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:01:43 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:11:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1987038
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
12/14/1993
Doc Name
ADEQUACY REVIEW BAYFIELD PIT 3 AMENDMENT AM002 PN M-87-038
From
DMG
To
GOSNEY & SONS INC
Type & Sequence
AM2
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.
/
4
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
<br /> <br />included in the County Special Uae Permit. Times of operation have <br />produced objections from individuals residing near the operation <br />end es such it is important that this information be presented <br />clearly. <br />RfiCLAMATION PLAN DETAILS <br />The information presented in the amendment application indicates <br />some degree of uncertainty regarding whether the mined out phase 5, <br />6, & 7 area will fill with water and form a pond at. the conclusion <br />of mining. As such, the reclamation plan should cover both <br />scenarios, discussing specific reclamation activities that would <br />occur for a dry pit and for a pond scenario. Grading work on the <br />pit sides & bottom, topsoil replacement (shore.line areas only <br />versus the entire pit area), and revegetation details may differ <br />substantially for each scenario. <br />The reclamation plan end reclamation cost sections of the amendment <br />application may need to be modified to include reclamation of any <br />drainage control structures such as detention ponds and diversion <br />or collection ditches that are installed in accordance with the <br />approved stromwater management plan for the operation. Please <br />clarify. <br />It would appear that, due to the highly compacted nature of working <br />areas and the relatively shallow topsoil replacement depth, a more <br />substantial degree of compacted area ripping would be an essential <br />component of the reclamation plan in order to ensure adequate <br />rooting depth and successful revegetation of affected areas to meet <br />the proposed post-mining land use. Typical scarification methods <br />such as chisel plowing often are limited to a few inches; ii. would <br />seem that ripping to a depth of 2 ft. or more prior to tnpsoll <br />replacement would ensure adequate rooting depth. Please address <br />this issue. <br />TOPSOIL <br />A section of the amendment application states that "For the <br />majority of the area to be affected, little topsoil was salvaged <br />from the previous mining activities". This statement. gener•ai.es a <br />r_oncern regarding whether there is sufficient topsoil material <br />remaining within the proposed affected area to achieve successful <br />revegetation of the site to tl~e proposed post-mining land use. Tt <br />would be beneficial to have some approximation of both the size of <br />the area(s) devoid of topsoil due to historic mining activities and <br />the average depth and resulting quantities of topsoil avF~ilable for <br />salvage from remaining undisturbed areas. If sufficient quantities <br />of topsoil are not available to ensure successful revegetation, <br />then it may be nef_essary to incorporate some type of soil <br />amendments into the reclamation plan. Please edclress this concern. <br />Additionally, the application states that "Topsoil m~ be salvaged <br />from a portion of the permit as the pit is expanded in the <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.