My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE102978
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE102978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:56:40 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 9:30:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1998058
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Name
JOHNSON EXCAVATING CO TELLIER GRAVEL PIT M-98-058
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.
/
7
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
<br />The Division believes there is a remote potential for the proposed mining operation to <br />adversely affect the Anderson's well because of the depth and location of the pit in <br />relation to the well. Per Rule 3.1.6(1), the applicant must demonstrate that impacts to the <br />hydrologic balance of the surrounding area have been minimized. The applicant has <br />proposed constructing a monitoring well between the pit area and the Anderson's well <br />prior to excavation. The operator will monitor the well on a quarterly basis for water <br />quantity and water quality. The results of the water monitoring information will be <br />submitted to the Division in connection with the required Annual Reclamation Report. <br />6. Have the potential wildlife impacts been adequately reviewed (Rule 6.4.8)? <br />(Anderson, 9/21/98), (1 d) <br />(Bradley, 9/22/98), (16) <br />"Statements regazding the impact on wildlife made by Elizabeth Miller of the DOW, <br />were based on running the crusher for a maximum of 4 weeks (annually). The actual <br />period of time approved for the crusher operation is set at 50 days per year or 10 weeks <br />which is considerably longer than the time she had expected when she make her impact <br />statement. Anew wildlife impact statement is needed." (Diane & Thane Anderson- <br />September 2/, 1998) & (David & Janet Bradley- September 22, 1998) <br />DMG Response: On October 28, 1998 the Division spoke with Elizabeth Miller of DOW <br />regarding impacts of the proposed project to existing wildlife. In her letter dated <br />December 9, 1997, she stated that 4 weeks of the crusher in operation would minimize <br />the amount of detrimental impact the operation would have on the surrounding wildlife. <br />On the telephone, Ms. Miller stated that the 50 days/year or 10-weeks vs. 4 weeks would <br />not change the recommendations stated in her letter or require a new wildlife impact <br />statement. The Division and DOW believe that there are no significant environmental or <br />wildlife impacts from the proposed gravel operation. <br />7. Is the soils information complete and accurate (Rule 6.4.9)? <br />(Anderson, 9/21/98), (3) & (=J) <br />"The statement regarding the depth ojthe topsoil is inconsistent. It is also inconsistent <br />on how dre topsoil will be used in reclamation. " (Diane & Thane Anderson- September <br />21, 1998) <br />DMG Response: The applicant revised the permit pages to reflect [he correct topsoil <br />replacement depth. The applicant will replace topsoil to a depth between 12" and 18" <br />over the affected area. <br />"The use of the word overburden is inconsistent, sometimes including topsoil and <br />sometimes not. The trse of overburden as slated in this paragraph will be used to backfill <br />previo:es mine pits. " (Diane & Thane Anderson- September 21, 1998) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.