My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL38605
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL38605
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:58:19 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 9:45:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981022
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
2/23/1990
Doc Name
Reclamation of Pre-Law areas
From
C. Mount
To
MATT HAYES
Permit Index Doc Type
RECLAMATION PROJECTS
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
Memo - Matt Hdyes - 3 - February 23, 1990 <br />I have been unable to find specific commitments of what thickness <br />of topsoil will be replaced on the upper Hubbard Creek areas. I <br />assume that approximately the same amount as was removed from all <br />areas will be replaced on the regraded sediment pond and highwall <br />areas. Unfortunately, the soil resource information for the upper <br />Hubbard Creek area (page 2.04-57) gives no indication of how thick <br />the topsoil was in this area prior to disturbance. The topsoil <br />salvage plans for undisturbed areas (page 2.05-16) states: "The <br />topsoil (identified by soil tests) will be segregated and removed <br />from the area to be affected prior to excavation." and thus states <br />no specific topsoil thickness to be salvaged. The reclamation plan <br />for the upper Hubbard Greek area (page 2.05-36) also does not state <br />a thickness of topsoil to be respread. Appendix E-1, reclamation <br />costs, apparently does not have included a topsoil replacement cost <br />as a line item. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the <br />thickness of topsoil that was salvaged or will be replaced on the <br />upper Hubbard Creek areas. However, one could assume that, since a <br />greater part of the area will be left as a parking lot, some amount <br />of topsoil will be left as excess. My inclination is to follow <br />your suggestion to use this excess material as topdressing for the <br />waste pile and associated regraded areas at the lower Hubbard Creek <br />portal area. The fill required for regrading below the hillslope <br />at the upper Hubbard Creek area could then be obtained from areas <br />of the presently flat graded "parking lot." <br />The following questions may be used for updating the permit document: <br />1.) So the permit document complies with Rule 2.05.3(5) please state what <br />average thickness of soil was salvaged at the upper Hubbard Creek area. <br />2.) So the permit document complies with Rule 2.05.4(2)(d) please state what <br />thickness of topsoil will be replaced on the regraded sediment pond and <br />highwall areas of the upper Hubbard Creek site. <br />3.) The Division suggests that any topsoil left at the upper Hubbard Creek <br />area after reclamation be transported and used on the regraded waste pile <br />at the lower Hubbard Creek area. This would probably enhance seeded <br />vegetation growth at the site and allow for faster plant cover and <br />reduced erosion of the disturbed area. Please state what Somerset's <br />plans are for the use of this valuable topsoil resource. <br />4.) So the permit document complies with Rule 2.05.3(5), please locate the <br />soil storage pile directly east of the new gob disposal pile at the <br />Elk Creek Yard on a map. <br />5.) Please provide a key to the Soil Types map (E8-3292). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.