My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE102978
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE102978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:56:40 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 9:30:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1998058
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Name
JOHNSON EXCAVATING CO TELLIER GRAVEL PIT M-98-058
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.
/
7
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 />3. Is the Mining Plan narrative complete and accurate (Rule 6.4.4)? <br />(Anderson, 9/21/98), (2)&(d) <br />"The use of the word overburden is inconsistent, ~ sometimes including topsoil and <br />sometimes not. The use of overburden as stated in this paragraph will be used to backfill <br />previous mine pits. " (Diane & Thane Anderson- September 21, 1998) <br />DMG Response: The permit application reflects a distinction between overburden <br />piles and topsoil piles. Overburden excavated from one area of the pit will be <br />used to reclaim an area previously mined. Minor amounts of clean fill material <br />generated from off-site construction projects will be used to backfill the excavated <br />mine pit and must meet the requirements of Rule 3.1.5(9). Topsoil piles aze <br />stored in three separate locations and will be replaced on [he affected area to a <br />depth of 12" to 18." <br />4. Does the Reclamation Plan conform to the requirements of the Construction <br />Materials Act and the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations and is the <br />narration complete and accurate (Rule 6.4.5)? <br />(Anderson, 9/21/98), (3), (9), (11) & (12) <br />(Bradley, 10/23/98), (/9) <br />"The statement regarding the depth ojthe topsoil is inconsistent. It is also inconsistent <br />on how the topsoil will be used in reclamation. " (Diane & Thane Anderson- September <br />21, 1998) <br />DMG Response: The applicant revised the permit pages to reflect the correct <br />topsoil replacement depth. The applicant will replace topsoil to a depth between <br />12" and 18" over the affected azea. <br />"/s the statement in this paragraph regarding "absence of slope " consistent with the <br />reclamation plan offinal slope of 3:1? " (Diane & Thane Anderson- September 21, 1998) <br />DMG Response: The Division believes the statement "absence of slope" is <br />consistent with the proposed reclamation plan in the text and Map #4. <br />"The 2„d sentence irr this paragraph is unintelligible. The reclamation: of the dewatering <br />ditches needs to be clarified. (Diane & Thane Anderson- September 21, 1998) <br />DMG Response: Reclamation of the dewatering ditches is addressed in Exhibit E, item <br />#5. The overburden generated from the initial mining blocks will be used to backfill the <br />highwafl and the dewatering ditches. The overburden will be placed over the mined area <br />to a final slope of 3h:ly. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.