PERMFILE109876 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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