My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV89380
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV89380
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:11:18 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:50:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984065
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/13/1994
Doc Name
TR 10 COAL RIDGE 1 MINE
From
NCIG FINANCIAL INC
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
TR10
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.
/
4
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 /> <br />9&10) See text in Section 4.4.2.4 on page 4-57. <br />11) See Figure 4.7-3 and Exhibit 4.7-1 and the text under <br />Section 4.4.2.4 in the third paragraph on page 4-58. <br />14) Table 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b have been corrected to live seed <br />pound per acre. As discussed in the text, the heavy seeding <br />rate was used upon advice from local farmers, DOW personnel <br />and Coop employees, all people with considerable farming and <br />ranching experience in this particular area. <br />15) A) The previously approved seed mix shown in Table 4.4- <br />3b has been used with the additon of dryland alfalfa seed. <br />B) DOW personnel, during the site inspection, <br />recommended a 20 to 25~ of alfalfa seed with the explicit <br />purpose of an alfalfa dominated stand. "You will create a <br />feed lot for the wildlife" were the exact words of the DOW <br />representative. <br />As discussed in the text and shown in addition to Table <br />4.4-3b woody species as recommend by DOw were added to the <br />steeper slopes around the portal areas. Again, a heavy <br />seeding rate was used as DOW pointed out the potential losses <br />due to rodent and bird feeding. <br />The contract for the reclamation of the site by the <br />contractor includes a "revegetation success clause" and funds <br />are being retained until success of the revegetation can be <br />ascertained. Regarding the weed control, please see Section <br />4.4.2.6 on page 4-60, where it is stated that the operator <br />participated in the past in a county wide weed control program <br />and will do so in the future. <br />C) Appropriate corrections have been made on Figure 4.7- <br />2 (formerly 4.7-3). The original designation were listed in <br />terms used during various inspections by DMG staff and were <br />requested to be shown on the legend. A survey of the <br />respective lands will be performed to determine the exact <br />acreage of the individual tracts. In the absence of such very <br />expensive survey, approximate delineation taken from aereal <br />photographs could be used for acreage determination. <br />16) In the original submittal (June 1994), operator had <br />suggested to use the monitoring and success standards as <br />listed in the existing permit. DMG staff suggested to use a <br />technical standard, and cited to NCIG the specific quote of <br />the respective rule within the DMG regulations. The total <br />disturbed area is less than 40 acres. Section 4.4.2.10 has <br />now been changed to reflect the original submittal. <br />- 2 - <br />N~~~~~~~,~~I~~~„'ll <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.