Laserfiche WebLink
i i <br />Response -The operator is required to minimize dust and erosion by frequently watering the roads <br />and by constructing waterbars and frequently maintaining traveled areas. <br />6. Past reclamation has not been effective and [he requested permit does not have adequate conditions for <br />revegetation, especially in relation to wildlife benefits. <br />Response -Past reclamation did not require revegetation. Backfilling the mined pit was the only <br />required reclamation. And the pit has been successfully backfilled in those areas where it was required. <br />7. We find it hard [o accept the belief that any lands within the permit application can be suitable wildlife <br />habitat and are opposed to the proposal to redesignate [he land to wildlife habitat. <br />Response -The approved, and proposed, reclamation plan requires significant revegetation of [he <br />disturbed areas (including areas that have been disturbed for more than 100 years) including many native <br />grass species and lodgepole pine. Successful reclamation efforts will provide a prime forested area, with <br />a grass understory, for the local wildlife. As an alternative, the operator can withdraw the proposed post- <br />mining land use change and utilize the area for Industrial/Commercial purposes after mining ceases. <br />ISSUES RAISED DURING THE INITIAL COMMENT PERIOD THAT WERE DETERMINED, <br />DURING THE PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE, NOT TO BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF <br />THE DIVISION OR BOARD <br />1. Noise. <br />2. Hours of operation. <br />3. County zoning. <br />4. Dust and noise created by the crushing operation. <br />5. County public hearings. <br />6. Serious impact to property and living conditions. <br />~f <br />