My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001-05-15_REVISION - M1977020
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977020
>
2001-05-15_REVISION - M1977020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2021 6:29:52 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 8:43:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977020
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/15/2001
Doc Name
DS&G PIT 1 PN M-1977-020 DELTA COUNTY RESPONSE TO THE REPORT FOR THE CDMG INSPECTION PERFORMED ON 3-
From
UNITED COMPANIES
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
TR1
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.
/
18
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
w r <br />the event of a slump or collapse of raw material at the face. Also, mining <br />in multiple cuts allows the mining and gravel processing to stay above the <br />water table for a longer period of time during the mining of the upper parts <br />of the deposit. Finally, the haul road grade required for a shallow pit is less <br />severe than that required from the eventual bottom of this pit. <br />United Companies wants to change [he mining operation plan to allow <br />mining the gravel deposit using a multiple bench method. <br />3. Exposing more highwall than anticipated <br />The Environment, Inc. response to the Third Adequacy Review letter for <br />AM-1 agrees that a maximum of 1100 lineal feet of %:: l highwall would <br />be exposed at any time. <br />One aspect of United Companies' purchase of Delta Sand and Gravel was <br />a change in the operating philosophy for the gravel pits. One of the goals <br />of the AM-1 Mining Plan described by Delta Sand and Gravel Co. was to <br />minimize the amount of site disturbance and the amount of Reclamation <br />Bond required. As proposed in AM-1 mining and reclamation would be <br />the only activities performed in the gravel pit. United Companies prefers <br />to locate crushing activities in the pit as well. Crushing gravel in the pit <br />allows United to be more efficient during this stage of processing. <br />Locating the crushing below ground level buffers the noise and visual <br />impacts of [he crushing operation. One major result of this approach is that <br />the pit floor must be larger to accommodate the crushing and product <br />storage operations. <br />Two other conditions result from increasing the pit floor area. The amount <br />of/z:l highwall increases in rough proportion to the pit floor area and the <br />amount of topsoil/overburden in storage increases. <br />United Companies realizes that the changes resulting from the changed <br />mining and processing operations affect the dollar amount of the <br />Reclamation Bond. <br />United Companies requests [hat the approved method of mining this <br />gravel deposit be changed to allow an increased length of highwall. United <br />Companies requests that the I l00 foot maximum highwall length limit be <br />eliminated from the Mining Plan. <br />4. Stockpiling topsoil overburden in greater volumes and larger areas than <br />anticipated. <br />Greater than expected volumes of topsoil and overburden are being stored <br />on site. This condition is a result of changes in mining and processing <br />operations described in Items 2 and 3. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.