My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE71940
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
800000
>
PERMFILE71940
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:21:23 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:02:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1979191
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
2/26/1980
Doc Name
THREE BELLS RANCH MINING APPLICATION 79-191
From
DOW
To
MLR
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.
/
3
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 />James B. McArdle <br />February 26, 1980 <br />Page 2 <br />Fourth, the mining plan appears uncertain. Procedures for topsoil <br />removal, stockpiling, de-watering, gravel removal, etc. should be well <br />established. Care of topsoil for reclamation has not been addressed. <br />The construction, operation and reclamation of de-watering trenches is <br />unclear. How will they be built and managed? Will all suspended solids <br />be allowed to settle before pumping? Are settling basins necessary? <br />Will pumping "in fact" be allowed by the Department of Health? Much <br />conjecture seems involved here. <br />Fifth, the applicant implies that the area is to be reclaimed as a rec- <br />reational and/or wildlife area. This needs to be expanded. What kind <br />of recreational area? Will the area be reclaimed as wildlife habitat? <br />If not, what form of recreation is intended? [,That type of "recreation <br />for man" is intended? The Mined Land Rules and Regulations state that <br />there must be "reclamation with purpose". <br />Sixth, the applicant states that noise, air and water pollution require- <br />ments will be met, but does not state how. <br />Seventh, no written commitment to the final design of the gravel pits is <br />given. If they are to be as indicated in "Exhibit C" we find them to <br />be excellent. It appears by looking at "Exhibit C" that a minimum 160 <br />foot retention zone between the river and each gravel pit will be maintained. <br />We find this to be adequate. <br />Regarding reclamation, specifics on backfilling, contouring, sloping, top- <br />soiling, etc. need to be defined. What are the final contours? To what <br />depth will the land be topsoiled? Amounts and types of fertilizers? <br />Will seeded areas be irrigated? Why file the area? There is a discrep- <br />ancy on how the banks will be sloped. The text states that the pits will <br />be sloped to a ratio of 4:1 while "Exhibit F" indicates a 5:1 slope. We <br />approve the design shown in "Exhibit F". <br />More attention needs to be given to revegetation. How will they be re- <br />vegetated? Will trees and shrubs be used? How many? What types of <br />grass seed will be used? How much? The application states that pasture <br />grasses and/or native grasses will be planted. We recommend that the <br />area be reseeded to native plant species to facilitate the return of wildlife, <br />which is apparently one of the expressed desires of the applicant. The <br />planting of shrubs and trees should be included in the reclamation plan. <br />It is encouraging to note that the applicant will leave all existing woody <br />vegetation (pp. E-2). <br />Eighth, no mention is made regarding the net loss of water through evap- <br />oration. [de support the Division of Water Resources recommendations on <br />this . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.