My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-08-08_REVISION - M1973007SG
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1973007
>
2008-08-08_REVISION - M1973007SG
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:39:01 PM
Creation date
8/8/2008 1:10:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1973007SG
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
8/8/2008
Doc Name
Response to Adequacy Letter
From
SES
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM3
Email Name
JLE
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
Page 3 <br />Aug 8, 2008 <br />Daniels Sand Pit #2 <br />minimal growth medium. The biggest problem with the pit bottom is its sandy texture. This is fine <br />for invading trees and shrubs, but no so good for grasses. By simply increasing the fine content (silt <br />and clay particles) to about 30%, grass will grow very well in addition to shrubs and trees. Thus, <br />blending soil into the top several inches is the intent of the plan rather than creating a thick soil <br />layer that could become very soggy if the water table rises unusually high. In short, there needs to <br />be sufficient fines to grow but the medium must also be well drained. In the event there is <br />insufficient salvaged soil available for completing this, other materials may be required. On the <br />Castle Concrete Queens Canyon Quarry reclamation where virtually no native soil was available, <br />topsoiling was done using donated soils mostly excavated from construction sites. This was all a <br />part of the enhanced reclamation plan for that site which was a joint company-community <br />association to implement a higher level of reclamation than would otherwise occur. It was a very <br />successful approach. At this time, it cannot be known whether some similar, much smaller scale <br />approach will be needed here. The wording in the amendment application is simply to provide the <br />opportunity to do this if it is needed. The source of the material, other than material generated on <br />site such as excess wash fines derived from the sand itself, is not known. Thus, if this <br />supplementation is done it will need to be addressed at that time with regard to the Reclamation <br />Permit and possibly the Special Use Permit. The primary issue of concern would be possible <br />contamination of the aquifer that flows beneath portions of the pit floor. It is suggested that it be <br />made a condition of the approval that prior to importing materials for use in augmenting the <br />growth medium on the pit floor, consideration of the source and suitability of the material be given <br />and approved prior to the actual importation. It is important not to close the door on this often <br />useful and beneficial approach, but it is also important to insure it doesn't create more problems <br />than it solves. Thus a permit condition might well be the best way to address this at this time. <br />Item D. - Sediment Basin Reclamation: A concern is expressed regarding the grass understory and tree/shrub <br />density in the sediment basin reclamation. <br />Response: The sediment basin presently west of Academy Boulevard has demonstrated excellent invasion rates <br />of trees, shrubs, and some grasses. But the basin is still active and the water supply is almost <br />continuously available. What will happen after the water supply is lost is the real question. Will the <br />growth medium be sufficient to maintain good tree and shrub cover? As for the grass understory <br />that should not be a problem and if it needs to be supplemented the pit floor mixture would be <br />appropriate for this area as well as after the water supply is lost. The texture of the sediment is a <br />silty clay that holds a great deal of water but also drains fairly rapidly. So, once the water is lost will <br />there be sufficient water retention to support a good growth of trees and shrubs? Clearly, densities <br />such as those seen with a steady water supply cannot be expected, but a tree density of 80 to 100 <br />trees per acre and a canopy cover of at least 80% should be sustainable in a silty clay growth <br />medium in more or less a shallow basin topography. Supplemental planting would only be needed if <br />the density and cover declines to around 50 trees per acre or a canopy cover of around 50% to <br />60%. But supplemental planting should be done with a consideration as to whether the growth <br />medium can actually support a higher density. Clearly, a good deal of attrition will occur after the <br />water supply is lost and a judgement at that time will need to be made as to what is actually <br />sustainable. It may be that around 50 trees per acre is all that can be sustained, but it is also possible <br />that attrition would drop the density below that which is actually sustainable. Examination of the <br />tree growth itself is the only way to tell whether the holding capacity is greater than the result after <br />two or three years of attrition. If new seedlings are common and growing well, then some <br />supplemental planting would be indicated. But if new seedlings are uncommon and struggling then <br />the post attrition population density is probably what is sustainable. The inclusion of supplemental <br />planting in the plan is there simply to provide recognition that the post attrition population may be <br />lower than the holding capacity as indicated by the tree growth and condition. At the Castle Sand
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.