My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1984-08-20_PERMIT FILE - M1984099
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M1984099
>
1984-08-20_PERMIT FILE - M1984099
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/12/2022 1:53:49 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 11:09:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1984099
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/20/1984
Doc Name
J BAR B INC BAILEY PIT FN M-84-099
From
ENVIRONMENT INC
To
MLRD
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.
/
5
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 /> <br />5. No trees will be intentally protected or saved on the affected <br />lands. There is no buffer zone on the property. we have <br />a plan for tree planting of desireable trees and see no <br />reason to leave undesirable species. <br />IV. Exhibit E - Reclamation Plan <br />1. The road in question is the existing road that goes to <br />the farm yard and is shown on all Map Exhibits. <br />2. Understood. Enclosed is a copy of the Corp Of Engineers <br />response to a letter of determination we mailed on May <br />30, 1984, along with our comments on their response. <br />3. The only thing they have in common is the column labeled <br />total acres. Mined acres intertwine with acres of water, <br />bank slope and revegetation in such a way that it would <br />be difficult to break the acrages in each one of these areas <br />in to mined and not mined. We are sorry that there is <br />confusion when working with these tables. It is our intention <br />for the tables to be helpful for interested parties to <br />understand the different types of reclamation required <br />in the operation of a mine. If you have any suggestions <br />as how to make these tables correlate we will take those <br />suggestions into consideration. <br />V. .Exhibit 1 - Reclamat <br />1. Thank you for calling the omission of backfilling costs <br />to our attention. The last sentance of paragraph 3 on <br />page 9 says If the first method is used, backfilling <br />will follow as closely as possible the mining of the perimeter <br />areas." Which would mean that at any given time there should <br />be less than 1000 feet of shore needing backfill or resloping. <br />In reviewing our reclamation cost estimate we have found <br />that the figure we used for recoiling was to much. We used a <br />figure of $1.05 /yd cost for recoiling and after checking MLR <br />Doc. 1457 Appendix B-1-2 (NE) we find we should have used a <br />figure of $0.56 (haul distance less than 500 feet) for a <br />641-B Standard 28 cy scraper to replace soils. We will refigure <br />the Reclamation Costs using your suggestions and the new figures <br />for soil respreading. Your figures are roughly $O.289/cy <br />we will use $.30/cy for ease of calculation. Please find <br />the Revised Reclamation Costs attached and see that they <br />are inserted in the application books in your possession. <br />We hope these answers adequately meet your needs. <br />Since~ely,~Q <br />Stevan L. O'Brian <br />enclosure <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.