REV95417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' Division of Minerals and Geology l9 November 1998 Page 3 reclamation to mitigate visual impacts. This effort appears to the Operator [o satisfy DOW's wildlife habitat restoration goals as well. See also (3), above. Additional comments wire made about alternate reclama[ion/wildlife habitat loss mitigation methods and existing noxious weed conditions. The Operator intends to successfully rzclaim and re-plant slopes as proposed and sees no need to speculate about alternative mitigation methods. The Operator has an established weed control program in effect for portions of [he quarry. The Operator has no control, however, over the development of noxious weeds within currently undeveloped portions of the properly. The Operator intends to control noxious weeds during establishment of new native species on reclaimed slopes, adjacent disturbed areas, and stockpiles. The Operator does not intend to mount a lone campaign to eradicate noxious weeds naturally developing in currently undeveloped portions of the property and adjacent properties, especially in areas that will be mined later anyway, except as required by prevailing Jefferson County requirements. 2. Your observation that values refetTing to "perntted acreage"" on page 1, item 3 aF the Regular (112) Reclamation Permit Application Form refer to proposed affected lands within a larger overall property (and permit) boundary. This was done to be consistent with earlier DMG submittals prior to Haley & Aldrich's involvement a[ the site and also with Amendments No. 3 and No. 4 prepared by Haley & Aldrich in 1993 and 1994, rzspec[ively. The total area of the CAMAS property (labeled "Property and Permit Boundary" on the Mine Plan Maps in Exhibit D) is approximately 355 acres. To be consistent with previous DMG file information, we elected to continue to label the drawings that way, but use the total affected land area (now 217.9 acres, and 183.5 acres in Amendment No. 4) as the "permitted acreage" on the form. No mining activities, nor any disturbance of any kind are planned outside the newly proposed 217.8 acres of affected land. We have provided (attached) a re page one to the application form indicating a corrected permitted acreage of 55 ac s with a footnote explaining that the Amendment changes the total affected land y. Haley & Aldrich understands DMG's concern vis a' vis "potential risks to the public and wildlife caused by falls from highwalls along the top of the pi[" to mean falls by the public or wildlife standing at the top of the pit, not rockfall from the top of the pit onto entities within the pi[. As shown in Figure D-4, Exhibit D-Phase IV Mining Plan Map, all areas at the top the pit along the western and northern property boundaries adjacent to Jefferson County open space are proposed to be mined at flat (I.SH:IV) bench and highwall configurations that will be reclaimed with till from top to bottom creating slopes not highwalls in the reclaimed condition. Highwalls near the top of the pit along [he eastern and southern sides of the quarry are I) well within private property boundaries where the public has no legal access; and 2) typically developed in overburden and poor quality rock requiring first cut bench heights generally not G WROIECTSCD]WVePW DEQRESP.WRF