My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2002-05-28_REVISION - M1983033
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1983033
>
2002-05-28_REVISION - M1983033
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:49:50 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:41:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983033
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/28/2002
Doc Name
Review Comments
From
DOW
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
AM8
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
(page 2 Frei quarry wildlile comments) <br />During our visit to the quarry the operator appeared very open and honest with us, and told us that each <br />year production has been increasing, along with demand. In one of the public meetings I attended, it was <br />stated that they did not intend this expansion to increase production. it does seem that in order for them <br />to complete their current permit time Crame and that for the proposed expansion, that a large increase in <br />production would be required. [f this is so, then it also seems the above mentioned wildlife concerns <br />would also greatly increase. <br />I have made several calls trying to find more out about the current reclamation bonding process and dte <br />arrrent and future (expansion) bond amounts, but have not been successful in contacting him to get this <br />such information, With out this information, we also have concems that current bonding requirement <br />monies (now only $75,000 7) may not be adequate to do the job necessary to return the lands to a <br />condition of habitat we see inpre-mining times. -- -- - - - <br />This area ltas been identified as valuable and important wildlife habitat (especially for bighorn sheep, deer <br />and riparian areas), and if the expansion is allowed, I feel sufficieiu reclamation funding must be assured <br />to return the quality of habitat that currently exists, not just to `9egally" reclaim to minimum standards. <br />The owners have asked us for suggestions on how to minimize impacts of the operation expansion. Dust, <br />pollutants, and siltation are the major aquatic concerns and can be addressed by their strict and cautious <br />control of the operation of the mine. Another sure method of controlling pollutants and road kills would <br />be via a voluntary or mandatory limit on the number of vehicle/ tntck trips per day. I would like to see <br />this in one Form or another, as this should protect riparian areas and limit direct losses wildlife to <br />accidents. This seems a viable option as the ownec has stated this expansion is not proposed to increase <br />production levels. <br />Because this operation has such along-term of operation and total impacts are hard to quantify and even <br />predict, it seems the prudent path to follow is to make sure the mine doesn't end up a safety risk to <br />people and vildlife, or an enviromnental disaster or eyesore. It sounds as though this type of operation is <br />the likely source for future sand, rock, and gravel, and whatever we do now to assure a safe, <br />environmentally sound operation will benefit us all in the future. <br />Again thanks for ttie opportunity to comrnent, and please let me know if there are any questions on the <br />comments or the Inca[ wildlife in this area. <br />Sinc~lu~f'~~~ Vl/ <br />Ron Oehlker9 (and Lric Odell) <br />District Wildlife Manager (Habitat Biologist) <br />Cc: district file <br />r n~t.,n <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.