My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE110569
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE110569
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:07:20 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 7:51:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988044
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
7/13/1988
Doc Name
ADEQUACY REVIEW COAL CREEK RESOURCES FN M-88-044
From
MLRD
To
TUTTLE APPLEGATE RINDAHL INC
Section_Exhibit Name
EXHIBIT C-D
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.
/
7
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 />Coal Creek <br />Exhibit G - Water Resources <br /> <br />- 6 - July 13, 1988 . <br />12. 1'he proposed mining operation will impact the alluvial aquifer by <br />disrupting ground water flow. Aplan-for-augmentation is proposed to <br />mitigate these losses. The statement is made that water will be replaced <br />'in kind during the year to simulate the natural ground water flow through <br />the area, _ <br />13. Fias a quantitative study been conducted to determine the amounts <br />required? The statement is made that the mining plan is designed to not <br />require augmentation in perpetuity after resources have been extracted. <br />This statement appears to conflict with the statement that an <br />augmentation plan is necessary and will be provided to mitigate impacts. <br />Please clarify. <br />14. :Inclusion of aground water monitoring plan was discussed at the <br />pre-operation inspection. Please submit this plan for review. <br />Exhibit J -Vegetation <br />15. :Information was provided on ground cover for the lowland-type of <br />vegetation. Similar information for the upland-type was not provided. <br />'Fhis information will prove useful in judging revegetation success at the <br />time of bond release. Please provide baseline information on percent <br />ground cover and percent species composition (diversity) for both the <br />upland and lowland vegetation types. <br />Exhibit L - Reclamation Costs <br />16. 'ihe Division has reviewed reclamation costs provided in Exhibit L and <br />concurs in general with the methodology and unit costs specified. Please <br />clarify the breakout between seed, fertilizer and mulching costs which <br />have been lumped together. <br />17. I>lease clarify the inclusion for seeding a stubble crop as this is not <br />mentioned specifically in the reclamation plan. <br />18. 'ihe Division will require the inclusion of the cost of construction of <br />one (1) dumped rock ford-(drop structure) in the reclamation cost. This <br />is because the structure is required for headcut control and at least one <br />will be required at the final reclamation stage. <br />19. 'The roads in Section 11 have not been included in the reclamation cost <br />=_stimate. In order to provide for the necessity that these may need to <br />oe removed, or reduced in size from haul roads to access roads, costs for <br />scarifying, topsoil re spread, seeding, mulching and fertilizing for the <br />length of the perimeter road should be included and added to the total <br />reclamation costs in Exhibit L. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.