My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-05-05_REVISION - M1986015
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1986015
>
2007-05-05_REVISION - M1986015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:42:28 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 4:39:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1986015
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/5/2007
Doc Name
Adequacy Review
From
DRMS
To
Mark Heifner- SW Eco Svcs
Type & Sequence
AM3
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.
/
3
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
E) It is also the understanding of the Division £rom the application, that Phase <br />iI'S pit edges will be mined at a 3:1 or gentler slope to maintain stability and <br />that it will also be backfilled. You state, "Gradual backfilling of Phase 2 will use <br />a mixture of solidified concrete & overburden. Since the phase II are is being <br />proposed to be water storage, are we talking about backfilling above ground water- <br />line? Please explain. <br />F) Exhibit C-1 General Site and History Map, the legend provided with the maps, do <br />not properly correlate with what is labeled on the maps. Please provide a correlated <br />legend and map. <br />III) Exhibit "E" Reclamation plan. <br />A) Please refer to comments under Exhibit "D" Mining plan sub section "E" regarding <br />the bit of confusion about phase II reclamation plan. <br />B) It is the understanding of the Division, that the land above the reservoir <br />(PhaseII) will be re-vegetated to 4600 feet contour. In the reclamation plan map <br />labeled as Exhibit F-2, final land use, only a portion of Phase TI is shown as <br />water storage. Even on that map an alternative revegetation is indicated. Please <br />explain. <br />III) Exhibit "G" Water Information <br />A) Does Transit Mix has adequate water rights to fill the water storage areas as <br />proposed? Please explain. <br />B) The existing operation has 16 ground water monitoring wells. These wells were <br />drilled to evaluate ground water conditions in the alluvium and to assess <br />possible impacts to existing production wells in close proximity to the <br />operation. Ground. Two of these wells were constructed with 4 inch PVC SO THE <br />OPERATOR CAN CONDUCT A WELL PUMP TEST TO DETRMINE DRAW DOWN. Has the operator <br />conducted such tests? If so, can the Division receive the data, so we can <br />evaluate the results? Are there plans to install additional monitoring well or <br />piezometera in the amended area? <br />C) It is the understanding of the Division, that the operator has agreed to mitigate <br />impacts to all well owners with in 600 feet of the permit area and that the <br />operation is in full compliance of the State Engineers Rules regarding the 600 <br />foot requirement. <br />D) Operator must obtain prior approval from the Army Corps, prior to engaging in any <br />pro active work along the Arkansas flood plain and must maintain the 100 foot set <br />back as approved in 1986, along the river bank and the affected area. It wouldn't <br />be prudent for DRMS to change the set back at this time because it was approved <br />as SOOfeet in 1986. However, given what happened in JULY 6, when the river broke <br />its banks and flooded the pit, any pro-active construction along the channel <br />approved by Army Corps and does not add to DRMS warranty calculation will be <br />accepted by DRMS. However, if there are going to be structures in place that will <br />add to the cost of recalamtion that structure will have to be added to the permit <br />via a Technical Revision. <br />IV) Exhibits "H","I","J" &"k" Adequate. <br />V) Exhibit "L" Reclamation coat. <br />A) The operator proposes to poet a financial warranty in the amount of $2,352, <br />990.41.0f this amount, $1,007,887.41 is for slurry wall construction, no cost <br />estimate was given for the "metal sheet piling" and $1,143,088 for worst case <br />scenario of backfilling of the pits. Since there ie no design or cost estimating <br />submitted for the metal sheet piling, the Division request the language to be <br />removed from the application until such time a design is submitted or the design <br />and cost analysis' be submitted as part of the response to this adequacy. <br />s) In your cost breakdown for Phase I, you have a total of 3,244,677 cubic yards of <br />material needed to backfill. Available backfill material by your own estimate is <br />2,482,677 cu,yds, which leaves a deficit of 762,959 cu.yda. The Division will <br />agree the cost of $1.50/cu yds to push the material which translates to <br />$1,143, 885.OO.What about the push cost for the other2 million plus ? Worst case <br />scenario assumes the whole amount not the deficit material. Please explain. Does <br />your cost includes the haul distance, where this additional material will come <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.