My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE118163
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE118163
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:13:51 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 4:49:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983035
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
4/29/1983
Doc Name
TERRA CONSTRUCTION INC VOLLMER PIT FN 83-35
From
MLRD
To
RINDAHL & ASSOCIATES
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
~s <br />Mr. Gilbert F. RindaOhl <br /> <br />_4_ <br />March 21, 1983 <br />b. Uue to the fact that sane of the species (such as blue gra~na) <br />are difficult to establish, intimate soil-seed contact is <br />vital. Therefore, tl~e operator shoulrJ co~n~nit to either drilling <br />the seed mixture at half of the given rates or describe how the <br />seen will be covered after broadcasting. Any extra reclamation <br />.costs due to these procedures should be arJrJed to Exhibit L. <br />•c. Weed control should also be adrJed to the estimated reclamation <br />costs. <br />8. Reference my comments under Exhibit D, question 2 concerniny the <br />timetable for this operation. hly comments also apply to the phasing <br />of reclamation. <br />9. Mention is made of leaving slopes at a maximum steepness of 5:1, <br />except for "scarps" and "sub-vertical cuts". l•lfrere are these <br />"scarps" and "sub-vertical cuts" within the permit area? l•lfiy are <br />they to be left if the area is disturbed? Also, what is meant by a <br />' "sub-vertical cut"? <br />11U. The transition between page E-4 and page E-5 results in a nonsense <br />,X\ sentence. Perhaps a phrase or line was omitteo. Please clarify this <br />matter. <br />11. Statement #4 on page E-b that states that the operation "will require <br />~-~r; no additional large siltation structures from drainv~ays" has not been <br />L~'" ;,~ justified. See my comments under Exhibit U, question 9. <br />Exhibit F <br />This outline of the 80 acres of affected land is not given on this map. <br />'`This should be provided. <br />Exhibit G <br />~•1. Reference my comments under Exhibit U, question 9. <br />~_. <br />2.;'' Although a rigid sedi~nerit control plan inay not be possible, the <br />,~`° operator could commit to a general plan for protection of the <br />k ~ % drainage swale to the west, outlininy tl~e types of methorJs to be <br />~y, used. The general design considerations yiven on page G-'L are a step <br />in that direction. <br />Exhibit H <br />1. This is, in general, an excellent wildlife review. Unly one question <br />\ seems to be necessary. Your general future land use is reclamation <br />to rangeland, and yet the U.U.41. evaluation mentions homes beiny <br />r built. Please clarify this situation. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.