My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV95012
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV95012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:20:12 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:45:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977129
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/16/1999
Doc Name
WHITEWATER 500 PIT M-77-129 AMENDMENT 2 PRELIMINARY ADEQUACY REVIEW
From
DMG
To
ENVIRONMENT 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 />5. There are fences shown on the application maps that adjoin the perimeter fences of the <br />proposed site and appear to belong to adjacent landowners. On the map, please identify the <br />owners of all these fences, and any other structures on or within 200 feet of the proposed <br />affected area. Other structures that appear to be on or within 200 feet of the proposed <br />affected area, but are not listed, and who's owners are not identified on the map, are the <br />irrigation ditches, buildings, and the wells mentioned in Exhibit S. Please be sure that each <br />individual structure, and it's owner are shown on this map. <br />Exhibit C -Minino Plan Mao <br />6. Please show details of the proposed sediment pond on this map. Placement of a pit with high <br />vertical walls, near the County Road by Phase 3 -part A, is not recommended. <br />7. Please show the proposed locations for the topsoil and overburden stockpiles, and the <br />direction of mining, for each of the proposed phases. <br />Exhibit D -Minino Plan <br />8. The approved mining plan specifies a gravel thickness of 10-15 feet and an average <br />overburden thickness of 4 feet. Does this description apply to the new areas? It appears that <br />the current Phase 2 highwall is much taller than these thickness ranges indicate. <br />9. It is recommended that the pit slopes for each phase be reclaimed with irregular shorelines and <br />varying slope grades (in compliance with rule 3) to provide improved wildlife habitat and <br />aesthetics. <br />Exhibit E -Reclamation Plan <br />10. Please indicate if highwalls will be reduced to final grade by total backfilling, by cut and fill <br />methods, or by mining the final slope at the approved final grade. If backfil{ is to be <br />conducted, please provide details of the process, including where the material for backfilling <br />will be stockpiled and what the material.consists of. <br />11.Because of the aggressive nature of Russian olive trees along river corridors and lake shores, <br />the Division recommends that Whitewater use this amendment application to replace the <br />Russian olive (to be planted around the existing permit area) with other species of shrubs and <br />trees that are native to the area and benefit wildlife. <br />12.The use of three different mining and reclamation plan documents, with three different sets of <br />maps, is very confusing, especially when cross-referencing to identify which requirements are <br />active and which have been modified or deleted. Please consider combining these plans and <br />maps into one document, and one set of maps. <br />13.The reclamation plan for the Stage 3 - Part A settling pond indicates that this area will he left <br />to revegetate itself. This plan is acceptable, but it must include a provision for revegetation if <br />natural vegetation establishment doesn't work. The Division recommends a plan to revegetate <br />the area if natural revegetation has not become well established within two years after the <br />settling pond is taken out of service. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.