My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE60710
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
700000
>
PERMFILE60710
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:07:31 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 6:49:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983148
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/10/1984
Doc Name
MONTROSE COUNTYS LIMITED IMPACT APPLICATIONS FILE 83-148 THRU 83-153 83-157 THRU 83-163 adequacy iss
From
MLRD
To
MONTROSE COUNTY
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.
/
4
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 />i•1r. Patrick Warren -3- January 10, 1984 <br /> <br />Similarly, File IVo. 83-10l contains inconsistent information as to whether the <br />operation will be a dry pit or not. <br />P,iver Operations <br />Our File Pit <br />83-149 Lee <br />B3-151 Collins <br />83-152 Raish PJo. ~ <br />83-161 Hollenbeck <br />B3-163 Raish iJo. 1 <br />1. Maps should be provided/revised per the comments given in numners 3 <br />and 4 above. <br />2. Tne staff recommends delineation of the permit ooundary per numoer 2. <br />above. <br />3. 4Je recommend that you contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fur <br />the possible need of a section 404 dredge and fill permit. <br />4. Because streams respond in a numoer of different ways, hotn <br />biologically and physically when mined, we are concerned that such plans will <br />not ultimately induce adverse affects on adjacent lands or the riparian <br />community. The operator must, therefore, demonstrate that the operation will <br />meet the requirements of Rule 6.2(a) oy minimizing the disturoances to the <br />prevailing hydrologic balance. At tnis point in time the staff does not feel <br />that the potential impacts on the stream have been adequately addressed in the <br />application, and we would not presently be in a position to make a favorable <br />recommendation to the Mined Land Reclamation Board without some further <br />information. lJe would recommend that any responses pertaining to disturoances <br />to the stream be addressed by a competent surface water hydrologist or other <br />qualified professional. <br />Considering the comments above, the applications should detail as well as <br />possible the nature and extent of the mining plan and, in particular, how the <br />proposed operation will comply with Rule b.2(a). Such information would <br />include, but not be limited to, a discussion of the affects of the mining <br />operation on adjacent lands as the stream and its channel respond through <br />possible headword erosion of the channel and through possible downstream <br />scouring; measures which will be taken to minimize sedimentation of the <br />waters; depths} to be mined; possible lateral changes in the channel which <br />may occur as a result of mining; affects on aquatic oryanisins as habitat is <br />disrupted and turbidity increased; possible affects on nearby structures which <br />may have their components in or near the channel (eg. bridge abutments, <br />diversion gates, utility transmission towers, etc.). <br />Also, the Division of Wildlife has expressed concerns (addressed in their <br />impact assessments) regarding possible impacts on fisheries, waterfowl nesting <br />areas, and has identified winter habitats for the bald eagle. Obviously, such <br />concerns must be addressed in your plans. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.