PERMFILE102745 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Mr. Paul Sale • ~^ September 4, 1981 page -2- should, be stabilized with a perennial grass cover crop such as one of the wheatgrasses a[ a broadcast rate of 6.0 lbs. PLS/acre. Please consult with the Soil Conservation Service to determine the best species for this purpose and inform the Division as to their recommendation. }(2) Will there be any permanent equipment placed on any of the 14 pits? If so, the locations of such fixed equipment should be indicated. 3) Any 'of thg pits that disturb land adjacent to or in a water course or body of water (such as pits 3, 5 and 13) should control sediment and not knl allow it to move into the streams or bodies of water. Sediment control de- ~ t vices such as berms between the excavation and the water to slow water flow ~ r°~, and settle out sediment should be instituted in these cases. Are any of the ~ other pits adjacent to water co cses-7 4) Will the mining in pi "R3 enlarge-the reservoir? s this existing re- X servoir planned to be a stock pon tie mining is not to enlarge the reservoir, how are the shores of the pond to be protected and/or reclaimed) 5) If access roads exist or are built solely to serve the gravel pits, they should be reclaimed in a like manner to the reclamation of. the pits themselves. Topsoil from any new roads constructed should be stripped and stockpiled, and the roads should be revegetated when mining ceases. ~/6) What is to be the direction of mining in each of the 14 pits? Again, '`this question can .be answered specifically for each pit or generically for all 14 pits, if possible. 7) What is to be the depth of mining in each of the pits? This question ~an be answered as in question 6. 13) Pit 13 seems to something of a special situation. The affected land is given as 9 acres, and yet the 404 permit would seem to indicate that more acreage than that is planned for mining. If more than 9.9 acres is actually ~, •~' ~~to be mined in this operation, a regular impact, 112 permit would be more ~~° Q,~C" appropriate for this site. Due to the proximity of this pit to the San e, Miguel River, more detail is needed, in any case, as to the specific mining ~,~ plan for this site. For example, is the river itself to be mined? How is the river to be protected from sediment during the life of the mine? Will there be a necessity to dewater the pit during mining) If so, an NPDES per- mit (from the Colorado Dept. of Health) for discharge into the river will be necessary. Please clarify this situation. Exhibit C 1). Some of the questions asked under exhibit B could be answered by modifi- cations to the 14 maps given in this exhibit (such as the locations of topsoil k stockpiles, sediment control structures and direction of mining). However, if an answer in the text of your response to this letter will explain these things, then a new set of modified maps will not be necessary. I leave this to your discretion. 2) I am somewhat confused as to the scale of the 14 enlarged maps given in (~•~d ~ this exhibit. For example, the scale of the map for pit number 7 is given as ~„e~yl" 2" _ #mi. However, the actual scale is 1" _ ~mi. Is this true for the other 14 maps, as well or do the scales vary in some other way) Please clarify this situation. '3) Adjacent landowners (if any) could also be shown on these maps.