My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR12872
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
2000
>
APPCOR12872
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:33:14 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:35:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981044
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
12/19/1980
Doc Name
AVF GRANDFATHER REQUEST
From
MLR
To
EMPIRE ENERGY CORP
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.
/
45
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 />Mr. Steven Self <br />Page 5 <br />February 7, 2980 <br /> <br />2. Eagle NSA Mine - Based on the recommendations of J. P. Walsh to <br />salvage 6 inches from the 101 soil unit, it is not clear to the staff <br />how Empire Energy will be able to borrow 6 to 8 inches of topsoil <br />from adjacent areas and still retopsoil these adjacent areas with <br />6 inches of topsoil. The practice of disturbing larger acreages oF. <br />currently undisturbed areas to topsoil small acreages of disturbed <br />areas appears questionable at best. <br />3. Refuse pile. The applicant has failed to specify the source and <br />amount of topsoil that will be used to cover the pile with 6 to 8 <br />inches of topsoil. Additionally, given the lock of information on <br />the chemical nature of the pile, the staff cannot evaluate whether 6 <br />to 8 inches will provide adequate cover per the requirements of <br />816.103. <br />9. The applicant should specify the cubic yards of topsoil currently <br />stockpiled at the Eagle Ng area and at the Eagle NOA area. <br />5. The applicant has failed to specify the source and amount of <br />topsoil to be used to cover the shop area and roads to be reclaimed <br />with 6 to 8 inches of topsoil. <br />r <br />F. Post Mining Slope Erosional Stability <br />1. The staff geotechnical specialist is reviewing this sQction ~ 'U <br />of the application. His comments will be forwarded to you when <br />available. <br />2. The staff currently has one general comment. The cross-sections <br />for the eagle NS mine shows a nearly straight slope configuration <br />for a slope approaching 2h:ly and a length of slope in excess of <br />120 feet. This slope configuration will no doubt result in excessive <br />erosion. The same general comment applies to the slope configuration <br />for the Eagle NSA area. While the slope grade is less steep, the <br />length of slope is considerably longer and excessive erosion on such <br />a long straight slope appears likely. <br />G. Approximate Original Contours (IV 51=52) <br />1. The post mining contours shown on Map ZV-10 for the Eagle N9A <br />area will not satisfy the reguirments of approximate original contours. <br />Specifically, a channel is shown running northerly through the Eagle N9A <br />area in the vicinity of the N9A face-up area. The reconstructed <br />channel ends at the north edge of the blue boundary as shown on Map <br />Zv-10. The discharge of channelized flow onto a graded slope will <br />certainly result in gullying of this slope. This does not satisfy the <br />requirements to blend the drainage of the reclaimed area into the <br />surrounding drainage pattern. <br />(cont'd) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.