PERMFILE111253 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• ISSUES NOT TO BE CONSIDERED Diane & Thane .9nderson Letter September Z!, 1998 1. The statement regardine the topsoil is inconsistent with the requirement of the Special Use Permit (SUP) approved by the Routt County Board of Commissioners that reclamation be performed on each successive 6 acres. 2. The use of the word overburden is inconsistent with the application for the SUP submitted, that states that some of the overburden will be sold. 3. The thickness of gravel to be mined stated in this paragraph is upwards of 43 feet which is inconsistent with the SUP application depicting that the depth of the limits of disturbance would be approximately 30 feet. 4. The paragraph makes reference to a temporary office trailer that may be needed and this is inconsistent with the statement made in the SUP application that, "Temporary structures include a portable toilet facility. No office or maintenance facilities aze proposed." Also, there vas no mention of scales in the SUP application and these buildings and scales aze not indicated on the map submitted to the County. 5. There was no mention of sumps in the application to the county. We question the amotmt of additional noise that the sumps will create. 6. Exhibit E, Reclamation Plan. The location of the two shallow wetland azeas mentioned in this pazagraph were never mentioned in the SUP application. In fact it is stated that "No pond, lake or other water body is proposed for reclamation...." 7. In the reclamation plan, it is stated that a minor amount of clean fill material from off- site may be hauled and used to backfill the excavated mine pit azeas at this location. This statement is inconsistent with the SUP application that states that some of the overburden may be sold. 8. Final Shoreline Configuration. In addition, these azeas being created for mitigation of wildlife impact recommended by the DOW and are dry for a good portion of the season. Also, a dry surface in these areas is hardly mitigating visual impact. 9. Exhibit F, Reclamation Plan Ivlap. The final topography indicates a deep pit with hvo ponds, sometimes wet, which is in faz contrast to the current tlowing landscape existing at present. This does not constitute minimum visual impact. l0. Exhibit K, Climate. The statement made in this pazagraph regarding wind direction, typically west to east is inconsistent with the typical direction stated in the SUP application, NW to SE.