My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE61450
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
700000
>
PERMFILE61450
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:08:02 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 7:09:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981148
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
9/29/1983
Doc Name
ROBINSON BRICK AND TILE CO CHEIFTAN SOUTH MINE FN 81-148
From
MLRD
To
ENVIROMENT INC
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 /> <br />Mr. Larry O'Brian -4- September 29, 1983 <br />C. The seed mix for overburden areas puts an emphasis on <br />sweetclover due to planting both yellow and white varieties. From <br />the Division's experience, drill planting more than 1 pound per <br />acre of sweetclover causes sweetclover to become excessive at the <br />site at the expense of other species in the seed mixture. <br />D. Two different seed mixtures are no longer needed since all of <br />the area to be reclaimed and revegetated will be topsoiled. <br />„jj~ The text on page 22 mentions "Erosion control ditches will be <br />~ ~ constructed". Please specify where and how these ditches are to be <br />3~,~~~ co constructed. <br />~v ~5,~ Exhibit F - Reclamation Plan MaD <br />~P ~ <br />a~yiP~ There are two drainage areas entering the permit area ]ust south of <br />~ °~ Alameda Avenue. To reduce the Dotential for erosion and gullying of the <br />`~~,c~ reclaimed slope, should not the drainage ways be continued down the <br />c°,~,~° reclaimed slope to the pit floor? <br />~.~ S`~ <br />Exhibit G - Water Information <br />~~'~ This exhibit specifies this operation will not affect surface or <br />,~~'O' ground water. However, on the map supplied with exhibit J, one of the <br />\~y ~~areas in Phase 1 has been identified "Pond area". Please clarify this <br />,Q°~~E o apparent discrepancy. <br />~° E. Exhibit L - Reclamation Costs <br />~1,~ The basis for determining reclamation costs for this site is at the <br />~ point of maximum surface disturbance. The operator has identified this <br />b point as being when stage 5 has been completely mined and stage 2 is 65% <br />mined. After reviewing the mine plan (Exhibit D), it appears that at <br />°~° ~, this same time there will be disturbance to stages 6 and 7 for topsoil <br />3~ ^ stockpiling purposes. Therefore, the operator needs to provide <br />reclamation costs for seeding these two areas. Please specify to what <br />~'>;~° xtent stage 6 and 7 will be disturbed and calculate reclamation costs <br />~ correspondingly. (If all of the acreage in stages 6 and 7 are disturbed, <br />S^ ° the Division has calculated seeding costs to be ;3,136.00 for 13.72 <br />~~q~° acres.) <br />\fi~ ~ The text on page 50 specifies reclamation and revegetation <br />°~ activities are required on 52.69 acres. The chart on this same page, <br />however, specifies 69.29 acres need to be revegetated. The discrepancies <br />between these two numbers is due to differences 1n the amount of acreage <br />1n phase 2 requiring revegetation (47.3 acres on the chart versus 30.7 <br />acres 1n the text). Please specify why there is this discrepancy and why <br />not all of the acreage in phase 2 requires revegetation. If 1n fact <br />69.29 acres needs to be revegetated, please increase reclamation costs <br />correspondingly. (If to fact 69.29 acres need to be reclaimed, the <br />corresponding reclamation costs need to be increased by ;15,645.50.) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.