Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Frank ,N. Graham, Jr. <br />-2- February 17, 1482 <br />be used as a part of the final reclamation? <br />5. How wiZ1 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. In <br />the letter from their attorney, the Fountain Valley Authority made this one <br />of [heir prime concerns. The changes in topography over the entire mined area <br />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 />Exhibit G <br />1. To date, I have not yet received the review Letter for this application <br />from the Division of Water Resources. I wi1Z get a copy to uou as soon as <br />I receive it. ' <br />exhibit H <br />I. Presumably, the two existing stock ponds on t::e affected land will be <br />restored at the concIus_'on of mining. [Y'ould 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 Zetter 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 />cxhibi t L <br />2. As 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. I still need a revision reclamation cost calculation Far 30 acres of major <br />and 30 acres of moderate disturbance. I will review th_s as soon as I get it <br />and discuss a recommended bond amount with you. <br />Frhi hit N <br />is a fugitive dust permit to be required for this operation? (:••/e may ha .•e <br />discussed this, but I cannot recall). ,;gain, the Fountain. 'la1_'ey =.uti:ority is <br />concerned about Gee possible effacts of b-owing dust from t`_'s ep_ration and <br />should be assured that all re7uired fugitive dust ?ermits wi?1 be ap?lied for <br />and received by the operator. Please clarify this .-ratter. <br />One final note is as follows: If at same future date an asphalt o!ant is to be <br />installed on the affected land, the pemit will ha-.'e to be revised accordingly <br />(and bond adjusted, as necessary). Please reference Rule 1.1(17) ":•lininq operation" <br />I feel that we can settle these few remaining quest?ohs and should be ready for <br />[he February 25, 1992 Board meeting. Please call me if I can clarify any parts <br />of this Zetter. <br />Sincerely, <br />~' '~ <br />J <br />Mark S. Loye <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />,NSL: mab <br />Enclosure <br />