Laserfiche WebLink
Greeley 35th AM-02 Second Adequacy Letter <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> December 22,2014 <br /> 3. The Applicant did not respond to the comments from History Colorado and Colorado <br /> Division of Water Resources. Please address the comments noted in the letters and make <br /> any changes to the application as necessary. <br /> Items#4 through #6 from the first adequacy letter dated September 11, 2014 Were answered <br /> satisfactorily by the Applicant. <br /> 6.4.5 Exhibit E- Reclamation Plan <br /> 7. The Applicant's response for a Noxious Weed Management Plan was to revise the <br /> Reclamation Plan to state weed control measures will not change from the 2011 <br /> reclamation permit application. The 2011 Reclamation Plan states, "Weed control practices <br /> will be implemented as required" and "If a significant invasion of noxious weeds occurs, the <br /> area will be mowed periodically for control. Weeds will be mowed before they go to seed <br /> during the first growing season. Mechanical control will be used as a first priority. Chemical <br /> methods will be used only if no other alternative produces acceptable results. " <br /> A more detailed noxious weed management plan is preferred by the Division, however since <br /> noxious weeds are well controlled on the site the Applicant's response is adequate. <br /> 8. The Applicant's response for the use of fertilizer as part of the Reclamation Plan was to <br /> revise the Reclamation Plan to state fertilizer usage will not change from the 2011 <br /> reclamation permit application. <br /> The 2011 amendment application did not specify the fertilization types, mixtures, quantities <br /> and time of application in the Reclamation Plan. However, fertilizer application, mixture and <br /> quantity are listed in the Reclamation cost estimates for both amendment applications. The <br /> Division will accept the Applicant's response. <br /> Items#9 through #10 from the first adequacy letter dated September 11, 2014 were answered <br /> satisfactorily by the Applicant. <br /> 6.4.7 Exhibit G -Water Information <br /> 11. The Applicant responded to the review memo from Tim Cazier, P.E. in response Item #3, <br /> instead of Item #11. The Applicant's response was deemed adequate. A memo by Tim <br /> Cazier, P.E. dated December 15, 2014 is attached. <br /> Items#12 through #18 from the first adequacy letter dated September 11, 2014 are still being <br /> addressed by the Applicant. No response was received as part of the November 18, 2014 <br /> submittal. <br />