Laserfiche WebLink
<br />recommendations outlined, reclamation will be deemed complete when only 35% ofthe reclaimed ground <br />has vegetation cover. Given the poor condition of the land at present, it would seem that ground cover <br />needs to reach or exceed current levels in order [o slow weed invasion and actually improve the land for <br />livestock grazing, which has been deemed a primary future land use (see Exhibit pg 2 of Reclamation <br />Permit Application Form). <br />third paragraph, last sentence <br />Will all of the recommendations outlined by the District Conservationist in Exhibit J actually be <br />implemented as specifications of reclamation or are these merely recommended guidelines? The <br />Reclamation Plan does not specifically state that these recommendations will be followed, only that the <br />District Conservationist recommends certain practices. This needs to be made more explicit. <br />Reclamation of Stockpile and Other Areas, Exhibit pg 17, last paragraph <br />The paragraph states that portions of Stockpiles S3 and S4 at the south and east sides of the pit may be <br />left as a permanent berm with a reduced height and slope. What will be the proposed height and slope of <br />this berm? What will be the purpose? <br />EXHIBIT G -WATER INFORMATION (Exhibit pg 24) <br />Information in [his section addresses [he potential affects of mining on ground water wells, sources of <br />surface water, changes to drainage basins, aquifers and watersheds, but does not address the affects of a <br />reduced water table during the gravel mining operations as a result of dewatering activities, particularly <br />with regard to downstream riparian vegetation such as cottonwoods and shrubs that require high <br />groundwater levels. This issue is of critical concern to private property owners (the Robinson property) <br />located immediately down stream from the proposed development, but could also damage the riparian <br />belt to the east and to the south of the pit. The survey plat on Exhibit pg 60 shows the tree line south of <br />the pit to be located approximately 70 feet inside the 500-foot buffer zone around the pit. However, if the <br />road accessing the Luntz parcel (see Exhibit page 50) is correctly located on the survey plat, then the <br />location of the tree line appears to be misrepresented, and should actually be depicted as being just <br />outside (ca 50 feet) of the 200-foot buffer zone. It seems quite possible that this riparian area might be <br />adversely affected by a lowered water table. This should be addressed by the permittee. <br />EXHIBIT H - WILDLIFE INFORMATION, Exhibit pg 28 <br />RE: Wildlife species common to the area. It seems that elk have been left out of the common wildlife <br />species found in the Dolores River valley. In fact, elk are one of the most common wildlife species to be <br />seen in the Line Camp pastures. For the past four or five years, a small herd of approximately 10 to 20 <br />elk have used [he Line Camp pasture as a spring foraging area, as can be attested by local residents. This <br />may be the same small herd that formerly used the pastures where the Sunny Side gravel pits are now <br />located. (This gravel operation is located in the Dolores River valley approximately 3.5 miles down <br />stream from the Line Camp.) Construction of the Sunny Side pits have certainly changed the spring <br />foraging habits of these elk, as they no longer use this area, and the Line Camp Pit will certainly have a <br />negative impact on the elk, at least during the period of construction and reclamation. With one other <br />gravel pit located between the Sunny Side Pit and the proposed Line Camp Pit, and an ever-increasing <br />number of residences, these elk have fewer and fewer options for foraging areas within the river valley <br />during critical spring migrations. <br />-6- <br />