Laserfiche WebLink
II. ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTORS: <br />Issues raised by objecting party -Todd and Cazo] Weber, are listed below. The Division's response to the objection <br />issues follows. Issues are listed under the application exhibit (application section) to which they pertain. Issues not <br />pertaining to a specific application exhibit aze listed next. Issues that the Division believes are not within thejurisdiction <br />of the Division or Board are listed last. <br />ISSUES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD <br />ISSUES RAISED DURING THE INITIAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD <br />Rule 1.6 Public Notice Procedures <br />1. Items 7 and 11 of [he objector's June 25, 2002 leuer-" We have spoken with the Moffat County Road Department <br />and stated our objections to this mining operation and inquired as to the reason we were never contacted about this <br />mining project in the beginning and planning stages. The Road Department has no explanation as to the reasons we <br />were excluded in the early stages of the mine's development. Yet our neighbors, the Brannons, were contacted in <br />May of 2001, and informed of the intent to create a mine. Yampa Valley Electric and Century Tel were contacted <br />and informed of the intent to create a mine. Our house and property which can be seen from the mine site, has clearly <br />been visible to those involved in the creation of this proposed mine and we were never, informed as to it's proposed <br />creation." <br />Response- Rule 1.6.2 (I) (e) (ii) of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations requires that all Owners of <br />Record of lands surface that are within 200 feet of the boundary of the affected land must be notified. Since the <br />Weber's property is not within 200 feet of [he affected land the applicant was not required to notify them. <br />Anpiication Exhibit H -Wildlife Information <br />1. Item 8 of the objector's June 25, 2002 letter - "This area is wintering ground for elk, deer, antelope and a number <br />of other wildlife. A mine will most certainly drive the animals from their winter ground." <br />Response- The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) was contacted by the applicant and by the Division of <br />Minerals and Geology (DMG). The DOW's response's were: <br />A. "Impacts will be minimal provided that the mining operation stays outside of the 100 year floodplain of the <br />Yampa River." The applicant has responded in an Addendum to the application, received by the DMG August 09,2002 <br />that "Ivloffat County's operation will be on the bench above the flood plain, and will not disturb that azea. (See Exhibit <br />C-4)" <br />B. "We would only recommend that in the seed mix formula proposed that the Intermediate Wheatgrass be <br />replaced with Blue Bunch wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, and /or Needle & Thread. The applicant's response <br />in their August 09,2002 Addendum was " Mofat County will modify the seed mix formula on Exhibit E-! by <br />replacing the intermediate wheatgrass with two pounds pure live seed per acre of Needle-and-thread and three <br />pounds pure live seed per acre of slender wheatgrass." <br />C. "The area needs to be maintained to minimize runoff and sediment load into the Yampa River." The Mining <br />and Reclamation Plans include the use of low areas within the excavation area to control local surface waters <br />and berms and ditches will be used to divert surface run-off water away from the pit area. These practices will <br />assist in minimizing runoff and sediment load into the Yampa River. <br />