My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV15504
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV15504
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:26:50 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:06:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988044
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/25/2002
Doc Name
Responses to adequacy letter of April 26 2002
From
Southwestern Ecological Services
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
AM2
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
Page 2 <br />June 24, 2002 <br />Coal Creek Resources <br />and reclamation should be considered, as much as possible, as being one operation. If they are kept sepazate it <br />encourages a concept that operators should mine first and reclaim second. Although it can be done that way, <br />that isn't the intent of the law. In my opinion, we need to keep in mind that mine managers are rarely <br />familiar with the philosophical foundations used in the law. Cross-referencing and including reclamation <br />concepts in the mining plan helps the manager to understand a concept that more accurately represents the <br />philosophy underlying the law. <br />With regard to the saving of topsoil when the slope is laid back, that is done although it usually does <br />not result in stockpiling. The procedure used places the soil, at worst, in the upper zones of the backfill and <br />often on top of the backfill. Of course, this assumes the topsoil is distinguishable from the subsoil which, on <br />this site, is the case much more often than not. In some cases and particularly on other sites, subsoil and <br />topsoil can barely be distinguished by experts much less a dozer or scraper operator. <br />Item 4: Other Permits and Licenses - As I indicated to you previously on the phone, the water <br />resource for this site is leased from a nearby well owned by Rangeview. Rangeview therefore manages [he <br />substitute supply plan; not Schmidt. The State Engineer's letter was forwarded to Don Opheim of Schmidt <br />and he alerted Rangeview to the expiration of the plan. As indicated previously, Rangeview was going to <br />contact the State Engineer and provide the information needed to renew the plan. I do not have confirmation <br />that this was done, but, if you desire, it can be checked to see if in fact Rangeview contacted the State <br />Engineer and renewed the plan. <br />The various notices and proof of publication have already been provided under separate cover. <br />If you have any questions regarding these responses, please call. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~~ <br />Mark A. Heffner <br />cc: Don Opheim <br />Scott Davis <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.