My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1981-03-18_REVISION - M1977342
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977342
>
1981-03-18_REVISION - M1977342
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2021 12:09:02 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 8:21:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977342
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/18/1981
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT ADEQUACY LETTER OF 02-18-81 HENDERSON PN M77-342
From
CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM CO
To
MLRD
Type & Sequence
AM1
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.
/
14
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
.~ <br />Henderson Permit ~7-342 • <br />March 19, 1981 <br />Page Two <br />What is Climax doing to reduce the possibility of new <br />subsidence occurring? Please identify all areas where <br />future subsidence could occur. <br />Since the Mined Land Reclamation Act specifically t <br />excludes subsidence from its coverage, it would be ~~,.. <br />inappropriate to address the matter in our <br />reclamation plan inasmuch as our plan becomes a <br />part of our mining permit. <br />C. Reclamation Plan <br />1. Please identify all grading to be left steeper than 2:1 <br />on dry land and 3:1 from 5 feet above to 10 feet below <br />the expected water line. See Rule 6.1(f). <br />Grading of lands included in the amendment will, as <br />indicated, be accomplished in exactly the same <br />fashion as stipulated in Section 9.4 (page 9-2) of <br />the existing permit. We do not feel that the Act <br />requires the elimination of mining disturbances by <br />regrading to the original contour and we do not <br />intend to regrade to original contour. As indi- <br />cated in Section 9.4, grading will be limited to <br />providing proper drainage and providing flood <br />control. <br />Slopes of amendment lands to be left steeper than <br />2:1 will be the mine site extension cut and fill <br />slopes, and various locations along the interceptor <br />canal and road as dictated by the topography. All <br />slopes will be stable. <br />2. Please justify all steep slopes and describe how they <br />will be reclaimed. <br />The reasons for steep slopes on amendment lands are <br />the same as the reasons stated for steep slopes on <br />existing permitted lands in Section 6.6 of the <br />application. The mine site and some of the canal <br />and road cuts may go through solid rock. The mine <br />site extension fill will be at the angle of repose <br />because of the confined area. All other cuts and <br />fills will be kept at 2:1 or less steep where <br />feasible. <br />It is our understanding that the requirement of `o, <br />returning pond shores to a grade of 3:1 at the NJ% <br />waters edge applies to excavated ponds as opposed <br />to reservoirs (which are not excavated). The <br />objective of a reservoir is to hold water, and a <br />., <br />c <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.