Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Issues Raised in Public Comments on the Application <br />In accordance with Rule 1,4.5(6), the following listing is provided of the issues raised in public <br />or other agency comments on the reclamation permit application for [he Yankee Gulch Minerals <br />Project and a summary statement detailing how each issue was resolved, or in cases where the <br />parties remain unsatisfied, a summary of the DMG's position on the issue. This section shall <br />serve, in part, to satisfy the requirement of Rule 1.4.5(5)(b) for DMG to set forth a written <br />explanation of the grounds for a recommendation to approve an application over an objection. <br />Comment #1: The floodway has been altered through the reach of the Big Thompson River <br />where the gravel pi[ is proposed. <br />DMG Position: The Board does no[ hold applicants responsible for impacts that may have <br />occurred prior to the issuance of a permit for gravel extraction and reclamation. if the floodway <br />has been altered by previous industrial activities at the site, including processing and stockpiling <br />of gravel imported from offsite pits, the altered floodway would be considered the prevailing <br />hydrologic balance. Adverse impacts to the floodway once a reclamation permit is issued would <br />be regulated by the Board and would also be regulated by the local floodplain authority. <br />Comment #2: The Division of Wildlife (DOW) provided recommendations for bank swallow <br />protection and weed control. <br />Resolution: See condition to approval #1 listed above for bank swallow protection plan. Weed <br />control within the proposed permit area is required under rule 3.1.10(6) <br />Comment #3: Truck traffic and related adverse impacts. <br />DMG Position: Truck traffic and related impacts are not within the Board's jurisdiction. The <br />decision as to whether a gravel pit is an acceptable land use in a particular location rests with the <br />local land use authority. The Board is primarily concerned with the reclamation of mined land <br />and the minimization of environmental impacts during mining. Since hauling by truck is integral <br />to most mining operations, the acceptability of the related noise, dust, increased traffic, etc. is <br />decided locally. Individuals and groups concerned with traffic impacts from the pit are <br />encouraged to pursue their concems with the local land use authority. <br />Comment #4: The Operator will be unable to reclaim the site to wildlife habitat through the <br />execution of the proposed reclamation plan. <br />DMG Position: The statement that reclamation to wildlife habitat is no[ a realistic goal is <br />contrazy to the direct observations and experience of the DMG and the Board at hundreds of <br />reclaimed pits in Colorado. The objector that raised this issue was encouraged to cite specific <br />concerns with the proposed reclamation plan and a basis for the opinion that the plan will not <br />succeed. No specific concerns have been provided, and the objector did not participate in the <br />Informal Conference held on July 20, 2000. The reclamation plan has been reviewed by DMG <br />and DOW and found to be adequate to achieve the selected post mining land use. <br />