My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE120717
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE120717
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:19:21 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 8:41:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2000158
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
4/5/2001
Doc Name
Second Adequacy Response
From
ENVIRONMENT INC
To
DMG
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.
/
6
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 />ENVIRONMENT, INC. <br />APRIL 4. 2001 <br />PAGE 5 <br />quires replacement of wetlands. ." The proposed reclama- <br />tion plan does not incorporate replacing wetlands at this time <br />since there are no wetland areas in the places where mining <br />will take place over the first 20 plus years. Replacement <br />wetlands, under 404 rules, are not a reclamation project, but <br />are rather a mitigation and reconstruction requirement of a <br />404 permit. PS6G will follow the jurisdictional agency's rules <br />when and if they remove wetland areas. M.L.R.B. Rules and <br />Regulations do not cover wetland removal methods and mitiga- <br />tion nor can the Division enforce another agency's rules. As <br />I understand it, the Division can only advise an operator that <br />they have to comply with another agency's rules and if they <br />fail to comply, then the Division can take action against them <br />for not complying. But in this case, if PS&G is in compliance <br />with 404 requirements, then the M.L.R.B. has no jurisdiction <br />to require PS&G to include wetland mitigation projects in the <br />reclamation plan, <br />11. Responses to their comments follow this text. <br />12. So noted. I will review your number when we receive them. <br />Memo From Tom Schreiaer: <br />1. The excavation limits are shown as cross hatched areas on the <br />revised copy of the Mining Plan Map. Due to the scale neces- <br />sary for the map any dimensions would be so small as to be <br />unreadable. The setbacks can be scaled from these maps since <br />they vary and the written text supports or qualifies what the <br />map shows. Placing product, topsoil and overburden (none on <br />this site) locations on this map would at best be a guess and <br />could only be done at the time shown on the map. PS&G has <br />committed to stockpiling topsoil around the perimeter of the <br />mined area within 500 feet of where it is needed. In most <br />cases PS&G will be stripping and resoiling at the same time to <br />avoid moving material twice. In this case, only the topsoil <br />pile adjacent to the Plant site would exist. I request that <br />this requirement be waved since it has been adequately ad- <br />dressed in the application and this text. <br />9. Platte Sand b Gravel LLC is requesting that the recommendation <br />to minimize impacts during dewatering from the Leonard Rice <br />Consultants letter be incorporated in the mining and reclama- <br />tion plans. PS&G will commit to following the recommendations <br />as the mine develops. Specifically, mining in each dewatering <br />area will begin in early~.ummer s_o that aqu~,~g_r dewatering is <br />complete prior to_the next irrigation season. Mining in each <br />lake area will be done as far from off site wells as possible <br />and as close to the river as practical for the lake area <br />development. PS&G understands the requirement to submit an <br />additional hydrologic assessment if changes to the dewater <br />plan are necessary. They understand that the Division will <br />determine the permit modification method upon reviewing the <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.