Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENT, INC. <br />DECEMBER 23, 2004 <br />PAGE 2 <br />28, 2004. The approval date was June 7, 2004. He suggested that <br />we had done all we could considering that the problem was with <br />the Assessors records and that the public notice and comment <br />period were insurance incase this happened. <br />.Response: <br />Adjoining landowners page 38 <br />• We concur with Ms. McIntyre's assessment. See letter <br />from G&H Engineering. <br />• We concur with Ms. McIntyre's assessment. See letter <br />from G&H Engineering. <br />Structures Page 43 and Page 44 <br />• We believe Ms. McIntyre has incorrectly located the <br />headgate. It is shown as a box on the end of the <br />existing riprap line on Ms. Mcintyre's property. While <br />it is within 200 feet of the permit boundary, mining <br />will be no closer that 392+ feet. I also point out <br />that this headgate and diversion structure is at an <br />approximate elevation of 8060, while the.mine floor <br />will be 8125 or 65 ft higher than the structure. This <br />was pointed out on page 43 when we discussed the Vail <br />-- Ditch.. _ <br />• My research of uSGS maps found no indication of a name <br />for this drainage. If it is know locally as Keller <br />Creek so much the better. It was our understanding <br />that this drainage supplies water from the Vail Ditch <br />to users around the mined area including Mr. John <br />Kovacs on the north, and the Yeager Partnership on the <br />west as well as what we thought was the BLM property to <br />the south. Therefore we identified it as the Vail <br />Ditch and notified the owners. The map shows an irri- <br />gation pond that is "dry when supply not in use" that <br />is fed from a larger pond near the Yeager greenhouses. <br />We apologize for-any confusion this may have caused. <br />• So noted, had we know this we would have given Ms. <br />McIntyre and Ms. Sheridan credit for this structure. <br />Again this falls back to the incorrect information we <br />found in the Grand County Assessors office. <br />Conclusion: <br />Had these noted deficiencies been brought to our attention <br />during the permitting and comment period they would have been <br />corrected. There was no intention or conspiracy to leave Ms. <br />McIntyre's & Ms. Sheridan's names from the permit nor was there <br />any intent to hide the permit from them or deny them their right <br />to receive a personal notification letter and to complain. <br />