Laserfiche WebLink
<br />reclaimed terrace by maintaining steeper back-slopes. Regardless of the decisions made in <br />the 111 application, it has been shown (see Exhibit E, Pp. 15-1i~6) that the 2:1 slopes are ... <br />a. appropriate to the surrounding topography for rangrr grazing operations, and since <br />no crop tillage is necessary and the slopes are loca~ed at the landowner's property <br />boundary, there is no particular need for traversal by farm machinery; <br />b. are stable against slide and sloughing hazards, as evidenced by numerous hazard- <br />free excavated headwalls in surrounding operations which have yet to be shaped <br />and slope-reduced; <br />c. that a great deal of the naturally occurring slopes in the vicinity of the regional <br />gravel bench are at least that steep (see slopes marked on the Soils Map), support <br />natural vegetation, and with intensive re-vegetation practices are capable of being <br />established with suitable vegetative growth and Protected from erosive forces; <br />and ... <br />d. being located in a region of sparse rainfall and without significant up-slope <br />contribution of surface runoff, the back-slopes endure very minimal surface <br />runoff erosion effect. <br />18. Even waste asphalt from asphalt production at the ,site, is a valuable commodity <br />with considerable utility. Preliminary and final batch reject is utilized immediately <br />for access road maintenance. Due to this conservatioru of resources no waste asphalt <br />stockpiles shall be allowed accumulate, thus consideration in reclamation cost is not <br />applicable. <br />19. The 6-inch topsoil depth specified is expected to be the maximum available for <br />replacement, and shall range from 3 to 6 inches. <br />20. Closer examination of the existing soils, as explained in Item 5 above, has revealed <br />less available topsoil at the site than originally assessed for the 111 Permit <br />application. <br />21. Originally no ponds were planned on-site under the' 111 Permit for previous state <br />highway material contract fulfillment. More current plans for various washed <br />material production, however, will require wash ar~d abatement water resource <br />availability on site. Discussions with the landowner produced a plan whereby his <br />irrigation water may be allocated for temporary industrial use by pumping it from a <br />ditch at lower elevation. Following gravel production operations the landowner <br />wants use of the ponds for continued off-site ranch irrigation operations. The Exhibit <br />E "no ponds" remark was intended to indicate no significant natural surface water <br />ponding in the reclaimed areas of the pit. This discrepancy has been corrected in the <br />enclosed Exhibit E. <br />22. Temporary stormwater outlet controls at the northeast corner of the permit azea aze <br />no longer necessary, given the current plan for water gtorage ponds in that vicinity, <br />and the long term plan for wide dispersal and absorption of stormwater for vegetation <br />use on the finished bench. <br />23. Re-vegetation seeding on progressively finish-gradgd and topsoiled slope-banks <br />shall be delayed only until a large enough unit ('/: to 1 acre) has accumulated to make <br />reclamation seeding efficiently accomplished. Any reference to delaying re- <br />vegetation of progressively finished slope-banks has been removed from the plan. <br />24. A legume was not recommended by NRCS for the described "topsoil", however it <br />remains to be seen what shall be recommended for the residual pit floor soils (and <br />also for topsoils, for that matter), based upon soil tests to be performed. We shall <br />discuss this matter with NRCS within the limitations oflthe lack of available irrigation <br />4 <br />