Laserfiche WebLink
• Page 5 <br />March 6, 2002 <br />See drawing Exhibit "A" for the effected areas. See drawing Exhibit "B" for overall boundary. This <br />drawing rmotes the setback and other undisturbed areas. See drawing Exhibit " F" for edge water <br />lOCati071S. C <br />Griffin # 1 Ditch, see drawing Exhibit "D". <br />Exhibit G -Water Information (Rule 6.4.7) <br />Settling Pond. This pond is located in area "B" only. See drawing Exhibit "C'. <br />Discharge of Water, see "Discharge of Water", above. <br />A water augmentation plan has been filed with State of Cdorado, Water Court, Montrose, Cdorado. <br />Depth of ground water. The ground water with in these areas is between 20" and 24" below the ground <br />surface. <br />Effed on existing water wells. The expvation site is more then 325 fed from the nearest residence. <br />This resideno is across the Tomichi Creek (to the north). The water well that service this residence is <br />more then 400 feet from the excavated area. The well is located onto the north of the site and to the <br />north of the residence. This well extends more then 60'-0" in to the ground and is not effected by any of <br />the activities that will take place with in the gravel pft sfte. All other wells with in the Signal Peak <br />Industrial Park are further to the north of the gravel pit site and are not effeded. <br />Wildlife Information (Rule 6.4.8) <br />The Departinent of Wildlife letter is somewhat of a concern to us, but, not based on it stated concerns <br />about wildlife oath in the proposed gravel pit site. In September d 2000 the Seahase Ranch placed a <br />conservaRionhvildl'rfe easement against portieis of the Seahorse Ranch. The DOW funded a portion of <br />the easement. Paul Jones from the DOW managed the over view of this molter for the DOW. With in <br />the easement, spedfic management areas are defined with respect to "Sage Grouse". As is the <br />specific area for the gravel pit site. The two do rrot conflict with each other. Further the easement <br />documents advmowletlge that the proposed gravel pit site is just that a gravel pit site. The DOW agreed <br />to this as a part of the easement. We do not know who this Ridc Basagoitio is at the DOW. We have <br />had one telephone corrversation with him. Based on this telephone conversation it appears he did not <br />review the application, nor did he review the easement. Based on the content of his letter, the <br />appearance is that he wants the DOW to break the already agreed to easement documerrts. Our <br />discussia><s with Paul James of the DOW does rwt relied this same desire. <br />To address the spedfrcs of the letter we submit the fdlowing. (1) The areas are hay meadows. (2) <br />The aneas does not certain vast arrwurrts of wildlife, they corrtain the mneldlife that is listed with in ttmis <br />112 application. (3) If Mc Basagoitio was at the proposed gravel pit site, we do not have knowledge of <br />same. (4) The proposed gravel pit site does not "lie with in severe winter range, nesting and brood <br />rearing habitats of the Gunnison Sage Grouse". Under the terms of the conservatiormlwildl'rfe easement <br />spedfic management areas have been set up that are a part of the Gunnison Sage Grouse areas. <br />This gravel pR site is spedfically exduded from these management areas. (5) The proposed gravel pit <br />site is not with in a Signficant Wildlife Hat~itat Area. (6) The proposed gravel pit site does not interface <br />with arty of the spedfic managerent areas. ~ such, does not require mitigation ne revegdation as <br />called out in the letter. <br />