Laserfiche WebLink
3.1.6 "No pollutants will be dischazged to groundwater on this site." "There aze no <br />wetlands on this site" .The second statement is misleading. Since groundwater is likely at <br />the surface immediately west of the boundary, there can be no guarantee that groundwater <br />will not be polluted. See my last paragraph before discussion of Exhibit E. (34-32.5- <br />116(4)(h) & (d)) <br />3.1.7 "We will not encounter any groundwater on this site". In fact groundwater <br />may be at the surface on the western boundary of the site. Any excavation to this level <br />will likely encounter groundwater. (34-32.5-116(4)(h) & 34-32.5-116(4)(d), & <br />Responsibilities as a Permittee #2 & 18-8-503CRS) <br />Exhibit G -Water Information <br />(1) "The operation is not expected to directly affect any surface or groundwater <br />systems". The operator must be awaze of the wetlands immediately adjacent to the <br />permit's westem boundary because the original application to the county proposed using <br />water from this pond for dust control. (34-32.5-116(4)(h) & (d), & Responsibilities as a <br />Pernuttee #2 & 18-8-503CRS) <br />(3) and (4)--The operator anticipates hauling 6000 gallons of water a day for dust <br />control. Where will this water end up? Also if the operator anticipates no more than 5 <br />semi trucks per day entering and leaving the premises, is the water truck traffic included <br />in this? If not, the anticipation of volume of truck traffic is not accurate. (Responsibilities <br />as a Permittee #2 & 18-8-503CRS) <br />OTHER ISSUES <br />Application states "current use of the property is undeveloped rangeland. <br />Surrounding land is pinyon, juniper, sage rangeland with some pastureland in flatter azeas <br />to the south and west were(sic) there are some small ranches. There aze at least six old <br />coal mines within one mile of the property." <br />There aze several misleading statements in the above pazagraph: <br />(Responsibilities as a Permittee, #2) <br />The property in question is old growth pinion/juniper forest. The size of the trees <br />is comparable to that on our property. While the junipers are difficult to date in this azea, <br />coring and dating of trees on our property using standard tree ring dating methods <br />indicates the mature junipers are up to 2000 yeazs old, and lazge pinions (which aze easily <br />datable) aze up to 600 years old. Unless Bensons can prove otherwise, it should be <br />assumed the trees on their property aze of the same vintage and aze not recent invaders of <br />grassland habitat as implied by their usage of SCS report Number 284, which is addressed <br />below.(34-32.5-116(4)(f) & (k) <br />Bensons have failed to mention that there aze 21 homes within 1/4 mile of the <br />