Laserfiche WebLink
<br />seedlings on one hundred foot centers. The herbaceous wetland species which <br />will be planted are included in this submittal in response to DMG concern <br />number 16. <br />5. The 2n° sentence in this paragraph is unintelligible. The reclamation of the <br />dewatering ditches needs to be clarified. <br />Response: Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. The discussion on <br />how the dewatering ditches will be reclaimed has been modified in item 5 of <br />revised Exhibit E. <br />6. Final shoreline Configuration. We question whether the Reclamation plan <br />is adequate for the wetland areas. When no water is in the ponds, the surface <br />will be muddy or dry and cracked or dusty. In addition, these areas are being <br />created for mitigation of wildlife impact recommended by the DOW and are <br />dry for a good portion of the season. Also, a dry surface in these areas is <br />hardly mitigating visual impact. <br />Response: Anyone with any familiarity with the extensive work being conduced <br />on wetland mitigation in the Yampa River Valley, will quickly recognize that the <br />extent of wetland mitigation work exceeds the extent of revegetation associated <br />with gravel pit mining by a factor of many orders of magnitude and will quickly <br />recognize that this portion of the wetland mitigation plan is probably one of the <br />easiest portions of what is being proposed for final wetland mitigation. Wetlands <br />as evidenced by the extensive wetland areas in the two unnamed drainages are <br />often dry, they need only be flooded or have saturated soils to the surface of the <br />ground for as little as seven days during the growing season to be considered <br />to be wetlands. The scenario being suggested by the opponents relative to <br />extensive dry mudflats does not happen in naturally occurring wetlands and it will <br />not happen on these artificially constructed wetlands because there is no way to <br />artificially regulate the ground water table. The construction of these two wetland <br />features will constitute some of the most ecologically important reclamation as <br />is evidenced in the comments cited from Ms. Libby Miller in the 1 S December <br />1997 Routt County Regional Planning Commission meeting. In addition, the <br />Applicant submits that given the very small area involved in the proposed <br />wetland areas, they will occupy only 10.7 percent of the total reclaimed area and <br />will in actuality the most environmentally important and will be the most <br />impressive reclamation to be encountered on this site. <br />EXHIBIT F, Reclamation Plan Map. <br />The final topography indicates a deep pit with two ponds, sometimes wet, <br />which is in far contrast to the current flowing landscape existing at present. <br />This does not constitute minimum visual impact. <br />16 <br />