My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE101619
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE101619
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:55:50 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 8:06:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1982044
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
4/6/1982
Doc Name
8 TELLER CNTY GRAVELS PITS FN 82-42 THROUGH 82-49 INCLUSIVE
From
MLR
To
TELLER CNTY COURTHOUSE
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 />Mr. Rodney L. Banks -4- April 6, 1982 <br />` /5. A legume (as suggested by the S.C.S.) should be incorporated into the seed <br />'V`mixtures for each pit to help assure long-term soil fertility. <br />6. Trees and/or shrubs might be useful in the reclamation of some of these <br />sites. The native vegetation lists for the pits show that some sites would <br />support such plantings. Please clarify your plans in this regard. <br />7. I note that "all steep slopes and grades subject to running water will <br />Abe mulched". Z presume that this includes all pit slopes. Does this mean that <br />the pit bottoms will merely be topsoiled and planted? Please clarify your <br />mulching plans. <br />8. I note that all pits are to be reclaimed back to an agricultural use <br />,(presumably, limited grazing). I had understood that some of these landowners <br />had other plans for some of these sites (e.g., Emil Clark). Please clarify <br />this matter. -(Note that vertical and oversteeperied pit walls that are not <br />revegetated are not appropriate for such an end land use, as well as being of <br />dubious stability.) <br />Exhibit H <br />Although counties are not required to provide a financial warranty in order to <br />obtain a mining and reclamation permit, a pledge from the county commissioners <br />that reclamation will be done according to the terms of the permit and the <br />St performance standards of the Act has been required until now.' A change in the <br />~'^ Act by the legislature has resulted in the separation of bonding requirements <br />for private operators into a financial warranty and a performance warranty. <br />A-a These forms have now been approved by our Board. The county pledge to do <br />11\~` ` u15 reclamation is now to be made by using the performance warranty form. within <br />~/ ~ a week, a copy of the performance warranty wi1Z be available, and Z will send <br />one to you. You may use one form and incorporate all the operations into <br />this form, or use an individual form for each. <br />I have tried to be comprehensive in my revie~o of these applications. Please <br />feel free to call me if you have any questions concerning any parts of this <br />letter. I feel that we should be able to clarify these matters in time for <br />the scheduled April 21-22, 1982 Board meeting. <br />Sincerely, <br />~n.~~- <br />Mark S. Loye <br />Senior Reclamation Specialist <br />MSL/mmt <br />Enclosure <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.