My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV104375
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV104375
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:15:36 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 1:16:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1983059
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
9/29/1993
Doc Name
TERROR CREEK CO PERMIT RENEWAL BOND REVIEW TR APPLICATION PN C-83-059
From
J E STOVER & ASSOCIATES
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
TR4
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
C. E. Johnston -2- September 27, 1993 <br />11. It is agreed that had TCC salvaged topsoil as stated on page 2.05- <br />4R, approximately 18,700 cubic yards of topsoil would have been <br />salvaged. TCC only salvaged approximately 4300 cubic yards. <br />Evidently the average topsoil depth did not correspond to the <br />measured test hole information. <br />The issue of the amount of topsoil salvaged was clarified in 1986. <br />Prior to this clarification, Exhibit 7 in the "Brown Permit <br />Document" contained discussion regarding 11,000 cubic yards of <br />topsoil and a 9-inch replacement depth. The March 1986 <br />clarification indicates that the replacement depth is only 5-inches. <br />Enclosed is the revised page which should be inserted in the Blue <br />Permit Document in Exhibit 11. <br />I believe the issue of topsoil replacement depth was resoled with <br />the March 1986 clarification. TCC has committed to replacing about <br />5-inches of topsoil on the reclaimed surface, not the 10-inches the <br />Division would like to have replaced. I believe the Division's <br />assumption that not all topsoil was salvaged is arguable. <br />Part II <br />No response required for items 1. through 6. <br />7. The Division believes there is an additional measurement missing <br />from the footers on the radial stackers. The footing measurement <br />supplied is for the tires only. The pivot point for the radial <br />stackers is probably the additional measurement the Division is <br />concerned about. The pivot point for the radial stackers is located <br />on and therefore included in the crusher and screen pads. <br />The following revised and new pages comprise this application for a <br />technical revision: <br />Page Description of Revision <br />iv Added Figure 2, to Liat of Figures. <br />2.05-8 Revised discussion of method of handling coal waste during <br />reclamation. <br />2.05-8a Added discussion of the coal and non-coal waste reclamation <br />and disposal plan. <br />2.05-9 Clarified the discussion of the haul and access roads that are <br />to be left in place. <br />Exh 11 Page revised March 1966. <br />Please call if you have any questions. <br />Sincerely, <br />Jim Stover, P.E. <br />Consulting Engineer <br />cc: Relly Fritzler <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.