My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE108888
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE108888
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:01:22 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 5:29:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1998058
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
10/26/1998
Doc Name
TELLIER GRAVEL PIT PERMIT APPLICATION TECHNICAL ADEQUACY RESPONSES
From
KENT A CROFTS
To
DMG
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.
/
20
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 />mineral ownership rights to the applicant. <br />Response: A formal notarized copy of the Sand and Gravel Deed for this <br />property is enclosed in revised Exhibit N. <br />EXHIBIT E, Reclamation Plan <br />The location of the two shallow wetland areas mentioned in this paragraph <br />were never mentioned in the SUP application. In fact it is stated that "no pond, <br />lake, or other water body is proposed for reclamation ... " <br />Response: This statement is entirely incorrect. There is not any inconsistency <br />in our usage of these terms and there is extensive discussion and written <br />documentation in the supplemental materials accompanying the SUP <br />application. <br />Using the accepted regulatory definitions of the US Army Corps of Engineers, the <br />Environmental Protection Agency and all other state and federal agencies <br />dealing with wetland and jurisdictional waters, which have been extensively <br />tested in numerous court settings, wetlands are not ponds, lakes or other water <br />bodies. The only inconsistency found regarding this matter is the fact that the <br />opponents are unfamiliar with the terminology they are so freely using. <br />1. In this paragraph, it is stated that a minor amount of clean fill material from <br />off-site may be hauled and used to backfill the excavated mine pit areas at this <br />location. This statement is inconsistent with the SUP application that states <br />that some of the overburden may be sold. <br />Response: There is virtually no inconsistency in the examples cited by the <br />project's opponents. The SUP is not being reviewed here and the topsoil is being <br />retained for use in the reclamation of this site. <br />3e. Is the statement in this paragraph regarding "absence of slope" consistent <br />with the reclamation plan of final slope of 3:1? <br />Response: Yes. <br />3f. The statement is not clear on whether willows, narrowleaf cottonwoods, <br />and other wetland species will be planted on the reseeded sites. <br />Response: The statement in question is very clear. It reads: "Willows, <br />Narrowleaf Cottonwoods, and other wetland species will be planted along the <br />perimeter of the two proposed wetland sites at a density of one plant with one <br />hundred foot centers as recommended by the Colorado Division of Wildlife." This <br />commitment pertains to the planting of Willows and Narrowleaf Cottonwood <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.