PERMFILE72816 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to leave such a strip, the Division is unsure from the manner in which this is referenced in Exhibits E and H that the County is clearly committed to leaving this strip since there is no mention of just how much of a strip/separation of the mining disturbance and the nearby creek there will be. The County should provide a suitably revised Exhibit D (and/or Exhibit G) with narrative that clearly commits the County to leaving an undisturbed strip of vegetated area between the mining disturbance and the creek and states how wide this "vegetative filter strip" will be. EXHIBIT G: The NRCS reclamation plan included under Exhibit E mentions the possibility that the mining operation might impact the nearby South Red Creek and recommends, "if necessary", that use be made of either silt fences or grading to prevent excessive sediment from reaching the creek or that a "vegetative filter strip" be left between the operation and the Creek. During the Division's Pre-op inspection of the site on October 1, 1997, the County indicated its intention to leave such a "strip" which suggests that the County feels the operation could possibly impact this part of the local surface water system if appropriate measures to prevent such impact are not taken. Mention is also made in Exhibit H of the desire to keep a o4, "buffer strip" between the mine face and creek to filter storm water runoff. The narrative that makes up Exhibit G, however, does not reflect this same concern and only refers to a belief that no ground water will be encountered by the pit. Exhibit G is the Exhibit under which the possible impacts of the operation on surface and ground water systems are to be covered and, at this point, Exhibit C is not consistent with the appazent concerns expressed in Exhibits E and H. The County should, since the operation could possibly contribute excessive sediment to South Red Creek, provide a suitably revised Exhibit G making mention of this possibility and the measure(s) being taken to prevent this. EXHIBIT G: The narrative does not include an estimate of the project water requirements for the operation or of the source of that water. A~ The County should provide a suitably revised Exhibit G which includes this information. J EXHIBIT I: The Division will accept the absence of an accurate soil map considering the statement made in the NRCS that the "published soil survey map is not correct for this azea." EXHIBIT M: While the Division appreciates the extensive listing of possible permits that could be required for the operation and agrees that most aze not needed, it is not clear why cleazance from the State Historic Preservation Office is not needed for an operation of this proposed size. Nevertheless, the Division will accept that the County has made such a determination with the State Historic Preservation Office. EXHIBIT O: As indicated in the Division's discussion of its concerns regarding Exhibit C, there is no identification provided of the adjacent surface Landowner in the SW L/4 of Section U I1.