REV08604 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~-~ ENVIRQNMENT~ INC. • ~ PAOE 3 ~8EPTEMaER 1 ~ 1999 this way it only has .to be handled once. we also maintain ade- quate setback around the mined area ao that a cut/fill method could be done if there is not waste overburden available. in Exhibit L - Reclamation Costa we explained how a cut/fill would be used. Remember thnt when using cut/fill it is important to note that only the fill volumes (approximately y the elope volume) have to be calculated since the upper slopes will be created as the lower areas are filled. 11. So noted. As you are aware we do not plan to plant trees of any species on the amended area. I understand the Dow end D.M.G.'s agenda to eliminated Russian Olives from mining plans but we do not choose to make any changes to the current permitted arena at this time. 12. We concur, however we do not plan to do that at this time. we have bound our copies of the plane and revisions into books so we can keep track of the total plan. 13. We agree. we will reclaim the upland areas with the approved seed mixture. If we successfully fill the entire site creating a wetland habitat area we will supplement the natural invasion. After two years, if needed, we will obtain eattaile from adjoin- ing sites and scatter the seed pods on the area or selectively plant cattail tubers to fill around the naturally revegetated areas. 14. These structures are valuable and the owners may want to leave them. The current approved plan is to leave this area as n work/feed area which pretty much covers any configuration we want to leave. The concrete pads, and building can be use as storage pads, building pads, and shops that only enhance the value of the land. Our plan calla for only gradinq.the area around these features and while the old maps do not show them the new ones do. i alas do not believe that they have to be in the permit,aince they existed prior to 1976 and the existing permit made no men- tion of whether they would be removed or not. I also point out that these structures do not conflict with the post mining land use and do conform with the local building and 2oninq codes (rule 3.1.11). 15. So noted. i received the State Engineers form letter.commente on 8/31/99. We are aware of what needs to be done and thank you for pointing out the areas we may need to review. 16. Attached is a copy of the DOw comments and wildlife statement I received on 8/23/99. 17. We understand this requirement. The areas being added to the permit area have been used for agriculture during the past 90 plus years and are not in areas commonly designated as potential habitat for this plant. The one site we may have had is the release area above the river bottom where no mining will take place. 18. Our analysis in Exhibit L will give you a good starting point. Removal of the permanent faciliL•iea in the South area do not have to be calculated, as they will remain as part of the approved reclamation plan (work\feed area).