Laserfiche WebLink
EXHIBIT C, Section (i) and Section (I): This adequacy issue regarding storm water runoff is not <br />~~y",w satisfied. The Division does not understand the County's response. <br />~~~~ Please explain how spreading or stockpiling topsoil "on the bottom side of the pit to prevent any erosion" <br />M~~',ywill act to minimize the effect of the entire disturbance associated with the operation on the quality of runoff front <br />~~c~.' the site. <br />i1~y <br />"f`'~ EXHIBIT C, Section (k): This adequacy issue regarding the handling of refuse or acid or toxic materials is <br />satisfied by the response. <br />EXHIBIT D, Section (I) (a): This adequacy issue involving the range of overburden to be replaced is <br />satisfied by the response. <br />EXHIBIT D, Section (c) (i): This adequacy issue involving the importing of topsoil is satisfied by the <br />response. <br />EXHIBIT D, Section (c) (iv): This adequacy issue regarding the application rate of the seed mix is not <br />satisfied. You have proposed a seed mix , an application rate and the use of a drill all of which are acceptable to the <br />O~ Division. The Division also accepts that this mix must be broadcast on slopes too steep for the drill to operate. You <br />have not, however, committed to doubling the application rate of this mix when the seed will be broadcast. <br />Please commit to double the proposed seeding rate for the areas to be broadcast seeded. <br />EXHIBIT D, Section (c) (v): This adequacy issue involving the use of fencing on heavy use areas has been <br />satisfied by the response. <br />EXHIBIT G: This adequacy issue regarding the discrepancies between the quit claim deed and the <br />survey plat has no[ been satisfied. There are differences between the deed supplied by the County to establish its <br />ownership of the property where the pu is to be located and the survey of what appears to be the same property <br />supplied by Luchetti Land Surveying. <br />n <br />Please explain the discrepancies between the Quit Claim Deed to the property to be mined and the survey <br />plat supplied. (Is, for example, the proposed permit area smaller than and lying inside the property owned by the <br />County?) <br />EXHIBIT H: This adequacy issue regarding the community of San Acacio is satisfied by the response. <br />EXHIBIT 1: This adequacy issue regarding evidence of the receipt of notices of the permit application by <br />the County Commissioners and Board of Supervisors of the Soil Conservation District is satisfied by the response. <br />EXHIBff L: This adequacy issue regarding the possible damage to structures within 200 fee[ of the <br />affected area is not satisfied. The Division will accept that there are no right-of-way fences along Stale Hwy 142 <br />but the County must access the highway itself in some fashion across the intervening undeveloped right-oF-way <br />~'~ pth with its trucks and equipment. Such access has, in the Division's opinion, the potential to cause damage by the <br />W~ operation to the highway. No notarized agreement to compensate the Stale for damage to the highway by the <br />operation has been provided nor has any engineering evaluation that demonsuates the highway will not be damaged <br />by activities at the mining operation. <br />'t}~~ Please satisfy the requiremenu of Exhibit L in regard to damage to the highway by the mining operation. <br />NOTICES TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: This adequacy issue regarding notices of the <br />operation to surface owners of property within 200 feet of the affected area is not satisfied. The Division will <br />accept that the required notices have been sent and received by Quinlan Farms and Ranches and Margaret Munro. <br />There is, however, no evidence provided that the Colorado Depanment of Transportation has been notified of the <br />permit application and CDOT does own property within 200 feet of the proposed affected area. As a result of this <br />