My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV14599
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV14599
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:25:49 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:54:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981039
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/30/1989
Doc Name
PROPOSED STIPULATION 5 GRASSY GAP MINE MIDTERM C-81-039
From
MLRD
To
KORB AND CARROLL
Type & Sequence
MT1
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.
/
2
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
d . •-.. <br />Mssrs. Rooert Snerman, Mark Koro - 2 - <br />August 30, 1984-_ <br />Slopes at the site are steep, and surface run-off is currently controlled 0y <br />temporary drainage structures: Contour furrows and a perimeter ditch. Given <br />the run-off at the two reclaimed pi ts, the Division would 1 ike Rockcastle to <br />project the drainage pattern without the temporary structures and prepare a <br />plan to protect the reconstructed topography. This plan would probably take <br />the form of design and establisnment of one or more permanent stream channels. <br />Satisfaction of Stipulation 5 will be possible upon the receipt of a package <br />containing the following items: <br />Certified "As-Built" topography maps based on surveys of Pit 5 and Pit 6, <br />prepared to the same scale as the reclamation map (1" = 400'); <br />A demonstration of approximate original contour (AOC) consisting of: <br />a) a comparison of the slopes and drainage characteristics of <br />the reclaimed configuration versus the pre-mine configuratidn <br />per Rule 1.04.13; <br />b) a geotechnical evaluation of the safety factor of all slopes <br />per Rule 4.14.2(1)(0) and Rule 4.27.3(3); <br />c) erosional sta0ility of the site per Rule 4.14.2(1)ib); '~ <br />d) the compatioility of the reclaimed configuration with the ~~ <br />post-mining lantl use oer Rule 4.14.1(2)(0) and; <br />.~ <br />e) the blending of the reclaimed topography with the surrounding <br />terrain per Rule 1.04(13). <br />The Division is quite concerned that Rockcastle decided to halt all field <br />reconnaissance surveys until the 0ond issue is resolved. On page II.J-12 <br />of the permit application Rockcastle committed to the performance of a <br />vegetation survey by an authority in range management in 1988. This work <br />was not completed properly in 1988. Rockcastle re-committed to preparation <br />of tnis survey during the April 4, 1989 meeting as noted in the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Division review of such on April 10, 1989. Therefore we have <br />an expectation that this work will De properly completely this year. The <br />Division will pursue an enforcement action if this commitment is not fulfilled <br />tnis summer. <br />Lastly, I have modified my field scnedule during the month of September <br />following RocKCastle's decision to pursue the formal public hearing at a later <br />date. Please call to arrange a meeting which we can all attend. <br />Sincerely, <br />Catherine W. Begej <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />CWB/ern <br />930 2F <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.