My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE48305
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE48305
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:50:16 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:32:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983193
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
11/3/1983
Doc Name
R E MONKS PLANT 1 FN 83-193
From
MLRD
To
RINDAHL AND ASSOCIATES
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.
/
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 />Mr. Gilbert F. Rindahl <br />-3- <br />C~ <br />November 4, 1983 <br />2. The area proposed for stockpiling.topsoil is not adequate for the <br />amount of topsoil calculated above. If the area given were totally used <br />(giving a rectangular solid of dimensions 10' x 10' x 80') the amount of <br />topsoil stored would only be 296 cubic yards. This is not enough storage <br />o'c capacity for 3,469 cubic yards of topsoil from the first stage of mining <br />~\"y~' or the 16,133 cubic yards from the 20 acres already stripped. Please <br />~ clarify the topsoil storage plans. <br />3. Is the long-term topsoil stockpile to be stabilized by planting <br />with the full reclamation seed mixture? If so, are these seeding rates <br />to be drilled or broadcast? (See further comments on this reclamation <br />seeding mixture under Exhibit E.) <br />4. Given the fact that topsoil is potentially available to a greater <br />J depth then 6", I suggest that the operator commit to salvaging all <br />available topsoil for use in reclamation to a depth of at least 6" (the <br />depth your field investigations seem to indicate). Given the clay that <br />underlies the sandstone to be removed, rooting depth for vegetation may <br />be a problem and all available topsoil will be needed. <br />5. Will other ponds be needed for processing of gravel and operation <br />of the hatch plant? If so, describe these ponds and their locations. <br />Exhibit E <br />1. At one point you mention that the maximum final slopes of the pit <br />walls will be 5h :1 v, and at another point the figure 3h:ly is given for <br />~l these slopes. Obviously, the gentler slopes would be easier to <br />revegetate; however, in any case, which figure is correct? <br />2. As I understand it, the operator is now committing to revegetating <br />the entire permit area to return it to a grazing use after the mining is <br />completed. Yet, a possible industrial use is mentioned. If this <br />industrial use is not the primary use, the permit would have to be <br />modified at a later date to permit this use. Please clarify the plans in <br />this regard. <br />( 3. What is the proposed rate of mulching of the re vegetated areas? A <br />J rate of 4,000 lbs./acre is typically suggested. <br />,t 4. Given the confusion concerning the amount of topsoil available for <br />~~~ V deptheoft"betweeny5uandt6n~nchesothick°?e Pleaseocla~ify thisumatter~~l <br />5. Further details should be provided on the pond to be left in final <br />reclamation. Presumably, it is to be supported by water from the well. <br />Is this pond to be apennanent feature (with water pumped into it in <br />perpetuity)? Will it also be supplied by runoff from the pit area? How <br />deep will the pond be, and what will be the slope of its banks? Will the <br />pond somehow be used during the mining operation? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.