My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-07-09_REVISION - M1997086
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1997086
>
2009-07-09_REVISION - M1997086
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 6:03:02 PM
Creation date
7/10/2009 10:00:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1997086
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
7/9/2009
Doc Name
Submittal
From
Siloam Stone, Inc.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR2
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.
/
8
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
k <br />SILOAM STONE, INC. <br />BEDROCK MINE #1 <br />TECHNICAL REVISION <br />JULY 7, 2009 <br />PAGE 3 <br />PERMIT #M-1 997-OBS <br />of 50#1s or more. This mix will provide approximately 44.6 <br />seeds/sq-ft/acre when drilled and will be doubled if broadcast. <br />Seed Mix <br />Seed Variety Lhs-als/ac. <br />Wildrye, Dahurian 2.00 <br />Intermediate Wheatgrass, Oahe 2.00 <br />Smooth Brome, Lincoln 2.00 <br />Perennial Ryegrass, Tetrploid 1.00 <br />Slender Wheatgrass, Revenue 1.00 <br />Crested Wheats Hyarest Im <br />Onchardgrass, Paiute 1.00 <br />10.00 <br />Conclusion: <br />From this analysis we found that for mining to continue to <br />progress under the approved plan that we will need to increase <br />the disturbance area and bond so we can operate as explained in <br />the original reclamation plan. <br />In the attached band analysis Environment, Inc. increased <br />the slab rock area disturbance from 20.0 to 25.0 acres, added the <br />TSSA to cover no more than 35.0 acres and increased the permanent <br />Stoneyard area to 13.55 acres. We also revised the resoiling <br />method to use a loader and motor grader instead of a- dozer as it <br />is more efficient and cost effective. The base numbers for <br />cut/fill sloping and backfill sloping remains unchanged from the <br />approved plan. The unit cost numbers used by the Division in the <br />April 11, 2008 CIR.CES estimate was used except as noted when we <br />substituted the Loader-Blade resoiling plan. We used just the <br />tilling and seed cost only for the TSSA reseeding cost. Steve <br />thinks that Deb used the current length of sloping instead of the <br />proposed maximum so there may be some difference in the sloping <br />costs for that reason. Please refer to the attached Bond Analy- <br />sis for the base numbers proposed of use in the bond calculation. <br />Tn your inspection report you suggest that we place boundary <br />markers to delineate the areas of disturbance for each year. <br />This is counter productive for a maximum disturbance area bonding <br />scenario. At any given time we do not know exactly what type or <br />color of rock will be needed and therefor coo not know what part <br />of the mline we will have to use to fill_ the demand. We are <br />better off having a maximum disturbance area bonded. Then use <br />the annual report to show disturbed areas and where mining was
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.