PERMFILE108888 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. Response: Partially backfilled mine pits ranging in depth from zero to ten feet are not deep, nor can these slopes be considered as steep. As mentioned in the revised discussion of the depressional wetland areas in connection with DMG concern 16, these areas will not have standing water for an extended period, and will not be ponds or lakes. According to the definition of wetlands, they must be vegetated. The Applicant proposes to use these two wetland mitigation areas as mitigation for the 404 Permit which will be required to construct the haulroad across the wetlands in the two drainage bottoms. In this context ,it is certain that the Corps of Engineers will ensure that they are of sufficient quantity and quality to replace the wetlands which will be temporarily affected during mining. EXHIBIT G, Water Information The statement addresses the water quantity of our well by the dewatering activities. It claims that the water supply will be unaffected because the well is lower than the dewatering activities. This statement may or may not be true and the quality of the water is not addressed. Since the direction of ground water flow is not known, the affect of the activities on well water quality and quantity needs to be addressed more scientifically. Response: The Applicant finds the position of the opponents particularly confusing and misleading. They cite the Routt County SUP when it supports their scenario of apparent inconsistencies and lack of technical information, but where extensive information is found in this document and permitting process regarding the issue at hand they are silent. This issue is specifically addressed in response to the DMG adequacy comment number 11 and the Applicant feels that this issue merits no further discussion. Both the issues of water quantity and quality have been extensively addressed in connection with this issue. The Applicant submits that it is the opponents of this project who remain silent on addressing issues which were formally submitted to them in writing over 10 months ago and which they refuse to acknowledge or respond to. EXHIBIT H, Wildlife Information Statements regarding the impact of wildlife made by Elizabeth Miller of the DOW, were based on running the crusher for a maximum of 4 weeks (annually). The actual period of time approved forthe crusher is set at 50 days per year or 10 weeks which is consistently longer than the time she had expected when she made her impact statement. A new wildlife statement is needed. Response: A response to this issue as well as the same concern brought forward in the objection letter from the Bradley's is found in revised Exhibit H. EXHIBIT M, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The investigation by Sue Nall was completed in May of 1997. The site visit 17