Laserfiche WebLink
,~ <br />5) The pit floor cannot be rip-loosened to an 18-inch depth prior to topsoiling as <br />suggested in the adequacy review, since that technique would generate a <br />plethora of loose gigantic boulders that would be impossible to dispose of or <br />cover with the topsoils available for restoration. We can find no requirements <br />in that regard in the definition of "reclamation", Rule 1.1(40), nor in Rule 3. <br />It would in fact prove counter-productive to the requirements of Rule 3.1.5(1) <br />& (8), Rule 3.1.9(7), and Rule 3.1.10 (1) & (4) & (5). On the other hand, <br />some residual gravely material (6 to 12 inches deep) must be left at the <br />bottom of the excavation to avoid contaminating the extracted product with <br />the underlying non-gravely material. Rough grading of the finished pit floor <br />is to be accomplished in this residual gravely material. <br />6) Gypsum shall be incorporated into the top 6 inches of the replaced topsoil as <br />designated in the 110(2) permit "Reclamation Plan" Exhibit D 9~3 (Revised 22 <br />Maz 94), wherein there is no commitment to irrigation. There is no <br />appropriation for irrigation water for those lands and they aze situated up- <br />grade from the "Doing Ditch" where gravity flow irrigation is impractical. <br />The designated post-mining use and re-vegetation specification aze for non- <br />irrigated range pasture. <br />OTHER PERMITS <br />7) Colorado Division of Water Resources has been contacted for verification of <br />water rights for pit operations. Discussions with Water Commissioner Lyman <br />Campbell has revealed that Doing Ditch, the water source for West End <br />Gravel Pit No.l, is solely owned and used by the George E. Glasier, <br />landowner of the pit site and surrounding ranch. Mr. Glasier has leased a <br />portion of those water rights for gravel pit operations to the gravel pit lessee, <br />operator, and subject applicant, West End Gravel Company. Damages to <br />downstream water rights owners by Glasier's use is impossible since the <br />commissioner controls the Doing Ditch headgate. <br />NOTICES <br />8) Montrose County Planning (the staff and agent of the Montrose Coun[y Board <br />of Commissioners) made inquiry by telephone when they could not find the <br />Public Review Copy at the Recorder's Office prior to 6 Oct 97. This <br />applicant explained the permit application sequence of events necessary to <br />include "proof of notice to county commissioners and the SCD" in the <br />application requires their notices be mailed and verified received before a <br />complete copy can be filed for public review as required. Often there may be <br />an unintentional delay in assembling the balance of the application exhibits <br />between the first notifications and the filing of a complete application. The <br />2 <br />