PERMFILE130607

• Permit No: M2003037
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 10/8/2003
• Doc Name: Objectors Witness and Exhibit Lists
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

their review of al! of the documentation. We are unsure of what else the County needs
or wants regarding this issue but we believe we have submitted everything possible to
both the County and the State to illustrate the Applicants intent to reclaim the propertyto
"Cropland°.
5 -Haul Route Concerns -Again; during. the last public hearing we committed to 90%
of all traffic generated from the site to proceed east on LaSalle Road.- The remaihing
10% would either go south on 6175 Road or west on taSafle Road. The only exception
to this would occur if there.were, for example, a major County road improvement project
west on LaSalle Road for which this mine may be able to provide materials: This
exception would only fast for the Irfe of that specific project. Also, ff one of the neighbors
fo the south decided to subdivide more of theirland and requested concrete, asphalt, or
other materials that may be provided. by this operation, that demand could be served.
However, we do not anticipate more than 10% of a!I traffic going south on & i 75 Road for
any reason.
6 - Provide a Copy of Approved Plan for the relocation of the Chipeta Water
District service line - We have provided a copy of a letter from the district that states,
among other things, that the line can be moved at Mr. Haldorson's expense even though
there is no advantage to the District to do this. We have asked the Chipeta Water
District fora letter of clarification and that letter is enclosed. An approved plan as asked
for by Mr. Gibbons for the relocation would require completely reviewed and approved
engineering designs, legal agreements between Haidorson and the District, and other
documents. This has not and will not be done now because it is extremely premature.
The land
use decision needs to be made before requiring the Applicant to pay the high costs for
the needed engineering documents and legal-agreements. Only-after the Applicant has
obtained a favorable decision on The land-use is it worth the time and expense to iio this.
We commit to obtaining these agreements and movement of the water line prior to
moving south of the existing alignment and we will provide a copy of the approved plans
and agreement.
We want to emphasize that we believe a land use decisiorrand a special use permit
application should not be held hostage by a Countyrequired third party agreement.
7 -Weed Control Plan -The proposed weed control plan was included in the Colorado
Division of Minerals and Geology application after consultation with the Montrose County
weed control office. A copy of that part of the DMG application package is enclosed.
The weed strategy for specific weeds found in this area as supplied by the Montrose
County weed control staff have been employed. There has been no approval by the
Eastern Montrose Weed Management Commission. We wilt supply a copy of that
approval once it is obtain from both the Montrose Weed Management Commission and
by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology. Please note that it was our
impression through initial discussions with Planning Staff that an approved weed control
plan was not required for approval of this Special Use permit. Direction from Staff
indicated that the approved plan would be required prior to start-up of operatians. We
commit to obtaining approve! of a weed control plan from the Colorado Division of
Minerals and Geology as a part of our required reclamation plan and also from the Iota(
Weed District before commencing mining operations and supplying the County with
copies of both.