My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV96248
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV96248
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:21:00 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:57:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/5/1989
Doc Name
ADEQUACY ITEMS-CASTLE CONCRETE CO-SNYDER QUARRY AMENDMENT-MLRD PNM-77-210 AM-03
From
MLRD
To
MARK A HEIFNER
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.
/
6
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 />Mr. Mark Heffner - 3 - June 5, 1989 <br />Item 11: Have any investigations been made to assure off-site damage to <br />residences will not occur? If so, please explain. This question was not <br />answered in my first letter. <br />You state in your response that "seismic monitoring systems are being <br />considered for installation at various locations on surrounding land". Please <br />describe these systems. Will they be installed prior to the Phase III area <br />being disturbed? If so, please locate these on the revised mining plan map. <br />Third, my concerns about material falling out of the permit areas as a result <br />of blasting are not principally about possible fly rock. I am concerned about <br />material being dislodged into William's Canyon as a result of blasting <br />vibrations. What is the areal extent of disturbance associated with the <br />blasting program proposed for the Phase III area? How close to the west <br />permit boundary can you blast before material will be dislodged from the <br />undisturbed west-sloping areas? Please address. <br />Item 12: No additional response is necessary. Thank you. <br />Item 13: No additional response is necessary. Thank you. <br />Reclamation Plan <br />Item 1: Your responses present valid argument fora 4-inch topsoil <br />replacement depth. Please address a few remaining concerns. <br />What is the current vegetation cover density on the visual berm? What species <br />have successfully established there? What was the original seed mix used? <br />Was any fertilizer or irrigation used? What amount of topsoil was replaced on <br />the berm? What amount of subsoil was replaced on the berm? Was the berm <br />drill seeded or broadcast seeded? What are the bench widths and backwall <br />heights at the berm? What are the differences between the original visual <br />berm seed mix and the proposed Phase III seed mix? If there are any, why? <br />Will the proposed Phase III slope direction isouthfacing) be any different <br />from the visual berm slope direction? <br />Secondly, addressing the north-sloped reclaimed Phase I area, what is the <br />slope (3H:IV, etc.) of the bench? What was the highwall height before <br />backfilling? What was the depth of backfilled subsoil? What was the <br />replacement topsoil depth? What is the remaining highwall height? What <br />species have successfully established here? Was any fertilizer or irrigation <br />used at this site? What are the differences between the seed mixes proposed <br />for Phase III and the mixture used at this one-acre area? <br />Finally, how many growing seasons have passed at the visual berm and the Phase <br />I reclaimed area? Were either of these areas reclaimed using the topsoil <br />"inoculation" approach of topsoil replacement, i.e., did some spots on these <br />reclaimed areas not receive salvaged topsoil? Were either of these areas <br />reseeded after the initial seeding, and if so, how many times? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.