2006-12-19_REVISION - M1978314 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. Has the Applicant legibly portrayed the name and location of all creeks, roads, buildings, and permanent man-made structures contained on the area of affected land and within 200 feet of all boundaries of the affected land? (Rule 6.4.3) 5. Has the applicant adequately addressed how disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land and the surrounding area will be minimized from dust suppression and runoff from the disturbed areas? (Rule 3.1.6 and §34-32.5-116(4)(h)) 6. Has the Applicant indicated the projected amount from each source of water to supply the project water requirements for the mining operation and reclamation plan? (Rule 6.4,7(4)) Is this permit conversion application consistent with the intent of the general assembly to "conserve natural resources, aid in the protection of wildlife and aquatic resources, establish agricultural, recreational, residential, and industrial sites, and protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of this State?" (§34-32.5-102(1)) IV. ISSUES RAISED THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD The following issues will be contested by the Objectors and they will request the Boazd to consider these issues as described in Section VI. 8. Conservation and Property Values: "The proposed gravel operation expansion, together with significantly increased traffic and corresponding dust and other particulates, and the likely decrease in wildlife usage in the azea, will inevitably compromise existing conservation easements totaling more than 3,000 acres held by the Yampa Valley Land Trust, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Colorado Open Lands." (Hogan &Hartson; June I2, 2006 & James WM. Stovall, P.C.; June 12, 2006) 9. Transportation and Safety Concerns: "The project proposed by King Mountain also will involve a significant amount of haul traffic and a significant increase in truck traffic generally...ffi their current condition, the existing roads simply cannot support that increased level of traffic." (Flogan &Hartson; June 12, 2006 & James WM. Stovall, P.C.; June 12, 2006) 10. "Furthermore, the intersection of CR 3 and CR 5 poses a very serious safety concern..." (Hogan &Hartson; June I2, 2006 & James WM. Stovall, P.C; June I2, 2006). 4