My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE100212
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE100212
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:55:02 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 6:53:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981307
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
2/17/1982
Doc Name
BRODERICK & GIBBONS FOUNTAIN PIT FN 81-307
From
MLRD
To
WESTERN PAVING CONSTRUCTION CO
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.
/
2
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 />~~ Frank M. Graham, Jr. -2- February 17, 1982 <br />be used as a part of the final reclamation? <br />S. How will the restoration of the heads of drainages by the use of 6:1 <br />sloping in disturbed areas restore historical drainage to the affected <br />drainages? This could be a problem during mining and after reclamation. Zn <br />the letter from their attorney, the Fountain Valley Authority made this one <br />~~~"~ of their prime concerns. The changes in topography over the entire mined area <br />y`"77 due to the mining may also affect the flow in these drainages. Please clarify <br />~/: this situation or offer some form of contingency plans for the drainages. <br />Fxhihit /: <br />~l. To date, Z have not yet received the review letter for this application <br />~ from the Division of water Resources. I will get a copy to you as soon as <br />r receive it. <br />Exhibit H <br />I. Presumably, the two existing stock ponds on the affected land will be <br />restored at the conclusion of mining. would shrub and tree planting around <br />these stock ponds be possible (as is suggested in the enclosed review letter <br />from the Division of Wildlife)? <br />2. I have enclosed a copy of the review Letter from the Division of Wildlife. <br />I feel that, except for the questions about ponds given above, the application <br />and our adequacy exchanges will speak to their concerns. <br />Exhibit L <br />2. Rs I mentioned before, the bond submitted must cover all disturbance on <br />the affected land, This appears to be 30 acres of major and 30 acres of moderate <br />disturbance. <br />3. Z still need a revision reclamation cost calculation for 30 acres of major <br />~i'` and 30 acres of moderate disturbance. I will review this as soon as I get it <br />~' and discuss a recommended bond amount with you. <br />Frhi hih N <br />1 Is a fugitive dust permit to be required for this operation? (We may have <br />\, discussed this, but I cannot recall). Again, the Fountain Valley Authority is <br />JC concerned about the possible effects of blowing dust from this operation and <br />should be assured that all required fugitive dust permits will be applied for <br />and received by the operator. Please clarify this matter. <br />/ One final note is as follows: Zf at some future date an asphalt plant is to be <br />i1 / installed on the affected Land, the permit will have to be zevised accordingly <br />f~! (and bond adjusted, as necessary). Please reference Rule 1.1(17) "Mining operation" <br />Z feel that we can settle these few remaining questions and should be ready for <br />the February 25, 1982 Board meeting. Please ca 11 me if I can clarify any parts <br />of this letter. <br />Si`pnnce rel y , <br />,/ ~' ~li,~~~/ <br />Mark S. Loye <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />MSL: mab <br />Enclosure <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.