PERMFILE60022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

14r. Lloyd V. Barnhart - 2 - April 8, 1986 permit area and should be constructed beyond the setback (whatever its width). I note that the Division of Wildlife expresses similar concerns over the required width of the setback in their review (given in Exhibit H). 2. I also note that the arroyo which presently bisects the proposed 112 permit area is to be diverted into the abandoned Booth Canal. Various hydrologic questions arise relative to this diversion. However, I only wish to point out in this comment that the diversion points into and out of this canal as well as the canal segment used for the diversion will all be affected as a result of this mining operation. Therefore, they need to be included within the permit area and be reclaimed, as such. Once again, this will probably increase your fee and your acreage permitted, as well as requiring a change to your maps. 3. The sequence of your mining phrases makes no sense, given the existing \ disturbance under the 110 permit on this site. The present disturbance is in X (by the dates given on the map) what can be called phases 2 and 3 of the operation. This is also the sequence of mining given in your mining plan. Please submit a map and plan that resolves this problem. Exhibit D - Mining Plan 1. Topsoil and overburden (other than the flood control berm which will be \) presumably constructed of overburden and then topsoiled) should not be x stockpiled on the south perimeter of the permit area adjacent to the Arkansas River. This location would be much more susceptible to loss to the river. 2. Please submit the S.C.S recommended seeding mixture for the topsoil X stockpiles. 3. Why are overburden stockpiles not to be seeded for stabilization x purposes just like topsoil stockpiles? 4. Why cannot a specific method of mining be defined by the operator now? If this is done, the method could always be changed in the permit later via a technical revision. The operator will, of necessity, have to choose a mining method before operations begin, in any case. Several problems could arise if no specific method is permitted. For example, if the pit is dewatered, the discharge point would need to be described and included within the permit are (as is not now the case). I strongly suggest a firm method of operation be defined in this permit. 5. The total disturbed area to be defined in the mining plan and warrantied needs to tie in closely with the present disturbance. All of this area must be included in some fashion as some category of disturbance and warrantied appropriately. My field estimate is that this area already approaches 12 acres. a ~( 6. Please reference my comments under Exhibit C concerning the proposed ` mining phases relative to the existing 110 disturbance area. 7. Given some problems with existing topsoil piles, I suggest that, in X future, all such stockpiles be carefully dressed up and identified with a sign.