My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11121
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11121
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:34 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:17:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981039
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
3/24/1983
Doc Name
GRASSY CREEK MINE PERMIT REVIEW
From
MLRD
To
RAYE & 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.
/
14
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 />First of all, the applicant proposes to return the disturbed area to a <br />grass type community rather than return it to the mountain shrub, aspen <br />and sagebrush habitat which existed prior to mining. Shrub <br />reestablishment has not been addressed as a part of the reclamation <br />plan. [n the wildlife baseline portion of the application it is stated <br />that the characteristic of the naturally existing vegetation which <br />enhances its value as critical winter range for mule deer and elk and as <br />a migration area for elk is the favorable mix of shrubs, brush and <br />aspen. The applicant has not supplied site specific information with <br />respect to use of the mine site by deer and elk which would make <br />predictions of the effect of the habitat modification on these wildlife <br />populations possible. <br />Secondly, the applicant has solicited comments from the Division of <br />Wildlife (UOW) with respect to mitigation of wildlife impacts for the <br />operation. The DOW suggested habitat enhancement techniques which would <br />increase the forage and cover value of undisturbed areas thereby reducing <br />the overall impact of the operation. The response was that this would be <br />contrary to the goals of the Mined Land Reclamation Uivision (see page <br />V-2). This is not altogether true. In light of the applicant's and <br />landowner's wishes to establish a predominantly grassland vegetation type <br />on reclaimed lands the practice of habitat enhancement could reduce the <br />impact to wildlife significantly both during and after mining. <br />It may be necessary for the applicant to meet with representatives of <br />alined Land Reclamation and the DOW to discuss these issues and devise <br />workable solutions to these problems prior to permit issuairce. <br />XVI. Explosives - Rules 2.05.3(b) and 4.08 <br />1. The application states that no explosives will be stored on site <br />and that contractors are used to do any blasting when needed. The <br />Division is aware that this is no longer true, and that provisions <br />have been made to store explosives within the permit area. The <br />applicant is therefore required to submit all information and <br />documentation specified in Rules 2.05.3(b) and 4.08 for the <br />operation. This is required before the Division can make a <br />finding of compliance with the requirements of this section. <br />2. Rule 2.05.3(6)(a) requires that a detailed blasting plan be <br />included within the mine application. The amended application <br />fails to present an acceptable blasting plan. The operator <br />indicates that some portions of tl~e overburden do require <br />blasting, which is co~n~nonly conducted by a local blasting <br />contractor. The applicant should present, at a minimum, 'a <br />discussion of neighboring structures and a typical blasting <br />configuration utilized by the contractor. In addition, the <br />application should include a demonstration of conformance with the <br />vibrational limitation equation included in Rule 4.U8.4(10). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.