My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11470
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11470
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:52 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:20:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981039
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
4/28/1981
Doc Name
Preliminary Adequacy Review
From
MLRD
To
ROCKCASTLE CO
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.
/
11
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 />p. 5 <br />Preliminary Adequacy Review - Grassy Creek Mine <br />April 28, 1981 <br />2.05.3(6) Overburden <br />1. The applicant must supply pit dimensions and overburden volumes to <br />comply with this section. Useful information, if available, would be <br />pit cross sections sufficient to determine pit volume, and volume <br />estimations of existing overburden stockpiles which can be compared <br />to the volume of the pit from which the material was excavated. <br />2. Section 2.OS.3(6)(a) requires that a specific blasting plan be <br />provided to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 9.08. <br />Please provide this plan including all the information required in <br />2.05.3(6)(a)(i) through (vii). <br />2.05.9(2)(b) Reclamation Cost Estimates <br />The cost estimates should reflect a worst case situation. Additional <br />information which should be provided in support of the cost estimates <br />includes haul or push distances, makes and models of equipment to be <br />used, vegetation seed costs (by species), equipment rental costs, <br />equipment operating cost per hour, fuel costs, and labor. Equipment <br />time estimates should be based on standard reference tables (specify <br />those used) and all assumptions and correction factors must be pro- <br />vided. <br />2.05.9 (11 (c) Backfilling and Gradinq <br />1. On page IV-5 of the application, it is stated that "...where surface <br />stability can be enhanced by subtly modifying slipes, this will be done." <br />Please describe a typical situation requiring a "subtle" modification <br />to demonstrate conformance with the requirement of approximate original <br />contour (4.14.1(2)(a)). <br />2. The applicant must provide cross sections of the anticipated final <br />surface of a21 reclaimed areas to comply with 2.05.9(2)(c). <br />2.05.4(2)(d) Topsoil Redistribution <br />1. The text (page IV-S) acknowledges the poor suitability and thin <br />nature (2 inches) of soil unit 10i. Table 3, however, innaccurately <br />list the depth of this unit as 12 inches. This will not significantly <br />affect the situation of Pit b/ due to the relative abundance of unit <br />2/B. This error has a profound effect, however, on the available top- <br />soil situation for Pit p8. The omission of unit 103 from the table <br />results in a total of .4 acre-feet of suitable topsoil to be respread <br />over 8.1 acres of disturbance. This results in a maximum total depth <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.