My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL38351
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL38351
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:58:09 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 9:38:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984065
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
10/1/1990
Doc Name
PROPOSED DECISION & FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE FOR PR1
Permit Index Doc Type
FINDINGS
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.
/
36
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
-29- <br />Response to Citizen Concerns Received <br />During the Review <br />This section identifies the comments, concerns, and issues which have been <br />raised to date through public comment on this Permit Revision Application and <br />the Divisions response. <br />Letter from Greg McKennis to the Division, dated April 25, 1990 <br />The lease application was denied by the Glenwood Springs City Council and <br />the lands involved were withdawn from the Permit Revision application as <br />of August 6. <br />Liohtino. noise levels and visual impacts are not addressed. <br />It was explained that these issues are not under MLRO's jurisdiction. <br />Generally, regulation of lighting, noise and visual impacts is the <br />responsibility of local and county government. <br />Description of redepositing of the waste was cursory and inadequate. <br />This plan was addressed extensively in the Division's initial adequacy <br />letter, dated April 27, and in subsequent correspondence. The <br />underground waste disposal plan is specifically not being approved at <br />this time. <br />This comment was incorporated into the Division's initial adequacy <br />letter, and the information has been provided by the applicant. <br />Discrepancy in cut and fill volumes. , <br />The amount of topsoil in storage accounts for the discrepancy of 42,500 <br />cubic yards. <br />Location of pumping equipment. <br />The location of pumping equipment was incorporated intg initial adequacy <br />letter. <br />More detailed information on escaoewavs. <br />These locations are shown on Figures 4.3-3. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.