My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-11-14_REVISION - M1977219
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977219
>
2017-11-14_REVISION - M1977219
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:40:54 PM
Creation date
11/15/2017 3:15:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977219
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/14/2017
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Environment, Inc.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM3
Email Name
ERR
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
Summit Brick and Tile Company Fox No 1 Clay Pit <br /> M-1977-219 -Adequacy Response#1 November 13, 2017 <br /> This existing Reclamation Plan (1991) makes no mention of <br /> applying mulch, however in the 1991 SCD recommendations they <br /> suggested using 4000 lbs/acres of clean grass hay or straw so it <br /> was used in the Reclamation Cost Estimate . The revised <br /> Reclamation Plan includes the compilation of the past 3 <br /> reclamation plans now has a reference to mulch which was included <br /> as part of the revisions made to Exhibit I/J Soils and <br /> Vegetation. <br /> EXHIBIT R- Proof of Filing with County Clerk and Recorder(Rule 6.4.18): <br /> 37. Any changes or additions to the application on file in our office must also be reflected in <br /> the public review copy. Please submit proof that the public review copy has been updated <br /> with a copy of the response to this adequacy letter. <br /> We understand this requirement and will provide proof of <br /> placement for the file . <br /> EXHIBIT S - Permanent Man-Made Structures (Rule 6.4.19): <br /> 38. The Applicant states there are seven structure owners that have structures covered by the <br /> original mining leases, but lists twelve under this category. Please clarify this <br /> discrepancy. <br /> It should have read 13 , unfortunately the Goodrich' s were left <br /> out of the list . Their property is part of the Hanratty Lease <br /> #2 . It has been corrected in Exhibit S and the list on the maps . <br /> And fixed the reference to 7 in Exhibit S . <br /> 39. Please demonstrate the original leases are in compliance with Rule 6.4.19 for all <br /> structures located on them, including structures which have been constructed since the <br /> leases were executed. <br /> Please refer to pages 56 , 62 & 92 fo the submittal . The first 2 <br /> pages are from the Hanratty Lease #1 and Page 92 is in Hanratty <br /> Lease #2 . I have attached copies of those pages and highlighted <br /> the areas in question that show the leases covered all <br /> structures . The leases have run continuous since and the <br /> 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.