My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE109663
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE109663
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:06:42 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 6:40:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1987171
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/7/1987
Doc Name
RESPONSES TO ADEQUACY LETTER ON FOUNTAIN COLONY PIT YOUR FN M-87-171
From
MARK A HEIFNER
To
MLR
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 />Page 6 <br />December 7, 1987 <br />M-87-171 Adequacy Responses <br />Steven Renner <br />Third, sweetclover has been shown to be highly successful in this area <br />when planted along with other species. Although it can be a strong <br />competitor, when planted in small amounts in these types of soils it can <br />be a very successful species. One of the little advertised advantages of <br />sweetclover is its ability to provide shade to young grasses, something <br />that Cicer Milkvetch does not generally provide. Furthermore, <br />sweetclover can do well in years where moisture is lacking while Cicer <br />Milkvetch fails in situations such as this one where the annual <br />precipitation amount is near the boundary of its tolerance curve for this <br />latitude and elevation. In short, we wish to stay with the sweetclover <br />because, for all its poor attributes, we feel that its benefits are <br />somewhat greater. <br />QZ7ESTION 6: The Division encourages the operator to salvage usable topsoil <br />from proposed roadways. Although not specifically required by the <br />regulations, salvaging of this resource may prove to be beneficial to site <br />reclamation efforts. This may be particularly important if a number of the <br />proposed access roads will not be left for post-mining use. <br />RESPONSE: Because of the method of operation and coordination with <br />roadbuilding, as a general rule, roadways will be constructed on land <br />where the soil has already been removed. The only instance where a road <br />might be constructed on existing soil would be in low areas below the <br />level of the gravel deposit, particularly where shale or shale derived <br />material would be exposed if the soil was removed. The arrangement of <br />the roads, as described previously, will work to limit these situations <br />to small areas where a drainage course must be crossed to reach an <br />adjacent ridgeline. In those instances, where possible, the road could <br />become a small embankment to help in the control of run-off. In those <br />cases, certainly the soil would be salvaged prior to construction of the <br />drainage crossing. <br />It is hoped that these responses will answer your questions, all of which <br />we feel were excellent points and well worth further discussion. <br />Thank you for your consideration and help in bringing this application to <br />the Board for consideration of permitting. <br />Resp'ec/tfu~ll+y, <br />~~f U. <br />Mark A. Heffner <br />cc: R. D. Von Engeln <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.