My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE104909
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE104909
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:58:01 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 11:42:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/13/1989
Doc Name
SAN LUIS PROJECT ADEQACY CONCERNS FILE M-88-112
From
MLRD
To
BATTLE MTN RESOURCES
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.
/
18
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 />1. Areas coincident with the anticipated pit water level elevation <br />should be backfilled or graded to 3H:1V slopes from five feet above <br />water to 10 feet below, as would be required of any post-mining <br />ground water lake; or <br />2. The pit should be backfilled to above the anticipated water level <br />with waste rock, topsoiled and revegetated. <br />EXHIBIT H - Wildlife <br />89. The Mined Land Reclamation Board's consideration of Earth Sciences, <br />Inc. 's 1983 amendment to the currently existing permit No. M-i9-021 noted <br />the DOW's July 17, 1983 recommendation for site closure between January 1 <br />and March 31 of each year, as the mine site is considered critical deer <br />and elk wintering range. The Board approved the amendment with a <br />specific statement encouraging the company to establish a policy <br />minimizing the possibility of poaching or other damage to wildlife. <br />Please specify what provisions have been postulated to accormodate the <br />Board's request. <br />EXHIBIT L - Reclamation Costs <br />90. We have not been able to verify the suggested dozer and associated cost. <br />Ole would suggest that a 215 H.P. Dozer (D-7H equivalent) equipped with a <br />ripper, a U-blade for topsoil work and an S-blade for rock work, at <br />$90.00 per hour (total cost), would be the most efficient machine for <br />dozer work. We concur with the projected cost of an approximately 20 <br />yd3 scraper (Cat 627E equivalent) at $95.00 per hour (total cost). In <br />order to maintain equipment efficiency, the costs of a medium sized motor <br />grader (Cat 14G equivalent), at $70.00 per hour, and a small water truck <br />at $50.00 per hour should be included. <br />Miscellaneous costs which should be included in the cost estimate are <br />mobilization/demobilization from Alamosa; indirect project costs <br />("contingency") at 25A of estimated cost of reclamation. <br />91. Please include the estimated cost of shaping the heap and each waste <br />disposal facility to an uninterrupted 3.5:1 slope configuration. <br />92. The cost of transporting and placing two foot of subsoil at ea~:h waste <br />rock facility and on the heap should be included. <br />V open- y ~ hvnCwn_ <br />93. It would appear that the actual distance to transport topsoil ~nto the <br />west pit is about 2,550 ft (one way) at the suggested 2% grade. The <br />scraper productivity estimate should be adjusted accordingly for either <br />the increased distance or steeper grade. <br />94. Regarding heap and solution detoxification, please address the following <br />questions and concerns: <br />-16- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.