My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL35379
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL35379
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:23 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:18:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2003037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/29/2004
Doc Name
Response to DMG Staff to WestWater Associates Response
From
DMG
To
AGO
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />March 29, 2004 <br />Steve Brown <br />Colorado Attorney General's Office <br />Division of Minerals and Geology Consul <br />Re: Haldorson Sand and Gravel Mine, Permit No. <br />WestWater Associates Response, Feb. 11, 2004, <br />Stipulation No.2 of Board Order Approving Permit. <br /> <br />M-2003-037, Response of DMG Staff to <br />Concerning Petition for Reconsideration of <br />(Revised) <br />Dear Mr. Brown: <br />Please find below the response of DMG staff to the above referenced WestWater Response. <br />The response, which basically is a rebuttal to the Lewicki Report, submitted to the Board as part <br />of the Reconsideration Petition has been submitted by the original objectors to the permit. The <br />location of the noted issue by WestWater is in bold, WestWater comments are underlined and in <br />italics, and staffs response is in normal text. <br />Page 1, Line 5. <br />WVhich is the proposed death of excavation 10 feet or 13 feet?" <br />The Petition clearly asks for reconsideration to excavate 3 feet of topsoil and 10 feet of gravel <br />and is referenced as well else where within the petition. <br />Page 1, Paragraph 2. <br />"What new information?" <br />The Petition presents the argument of new information and as such it is the Board that will <br />determine whether the Petition meets the threshold for consideration for new information. <br />Page 1, Paragraph 3 <br />The Lewicki Report actually tries to address the concerns of the opposition and the Board. As <br />clarification, staff would like to point out a few discrepancies. <br />1) The Corey Pit referenced is abutted along a 400-foot highwall to substantial irrigated <br />fields. Although isolated on 2 sides by draws it is of the same basic geology as the <br />surrounding area. <br />2) The Applehanz Base pit and the United Pit are both down gradient on the same mesa <br />and staff has observed irrigated fields if not adjacent to at least very near these sites. <br />3) WestWater response states that the Base Pit has drained the area of the United Pit after <br />years of mining. Staff has no record of any ground or surface water activities at the Base <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.