My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP42775
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP42775
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:44:44 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 9:42:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1991035
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
12/31/1994
Doc Name
WILDLIFE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH WESTERN AGGREGATES INC BLUESTONE & SECTION 16 MINIGN PROPOSALS
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.
/
33
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
Bluestone and Section 16 Wildlife Issues Repon Western Aggregates, Inc <br />~~ water storage reservoir is to be constructed for the life of the mine along the east <br />side of Section 16 in the upper south fork of Woman Creek. Impounded water from <br />' most sediment ponds would infiltrate into the alluvium around the dams and <br />contribute to groundwater. Some water from the larger Section 16 pond wou]d be <br />' released from the bottom of the dam to feed Woman Creek. Sediment ponds would <br />not represent barriers to up drainage mouse movements if suitable vegetation is <br />present above and below ponds, such as that flanking larger sediment ponds in the <br />' Walnut Creek tributary, just north of the RFP, where PJM has been captured <br />' 4. As partial compensation for reduced surface runoff, or as enhancement (and only <br />if' it would be considered beneficial by biological consensus), surface flows into <br />' drainages below mining areas could be enhanced via some distribution of surface <br />release. <br />' S. The reclamation plan could be modified to extend potential PJM habitat up <br />drainage into reclaimed mining areas. This plan could be developed after more <br />' ecological and life history data are collected from buffer zone studies. In conflict with <br />t}Iis, however, is the desire by some commentators to replant native, upland tall grass <br />species. <br />' With th<: above commitments, it is unlikely that there would be any measurable affects on <br />PJM habitat below mining areas. In the long term, the complete package of PJM-related <br />' commitments would not only help protect some of the most important PJM habitat in the <br />buffer zone, but it could also minimally expand the mouse's local distribution. <br />t This same conclusion was reached for the approved RFP landfill (i.e., "...no threatened or <br />endangered or candidate species would be affected by the proposed action.", USDOE 1994b, <br />' page 9), which is immediately contiguous with potential PJM habitat to the north and south, <br />and approximately 3,834 feet up drainage from the closest PJM captured to date (EG&G <br />1994b). This 36 acre, lined landfill, would be excavated 20-35 feet into the ground. <br />' 4.2 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES <br />' The following federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species have historic ranges <br />overlapping the Bluestone and Section 16 mining areas and were considered in the <br />' Environtnental Assessment prepared for the approved RFP sanitary landfill (USDOE <br />1994a). <br />L_ 1 <br />1 <br />Wes~ern Ecosystems, Inc. t3 December, 1994 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.