PERMFILE131871 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 ,. ~IIII~IIIII~~~~IIII Lloyd V. "Buck" Barnhart #383NiYi$'t~31. I Pueblo, Colorado 81001 / (303) 542-9207 3 Sedum Court Office 543-1324 August 25, 1980 Dir. Brad Janes ~~.~~~~~~' ,l Dtined Land Reclamation Board 423 Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street ~~,~ (. 2 ,• 198 Denver, Colorado 80203 fli'V!=U I ;~P.D ~~CLANATI~k: File No. 80-131 Cole. Dip; ~! ~1'a?,~r?I Rp_c~••r~nc Bunn Ranch Pit Quillen Company Dear Brad This is in reply to your adequacy letter of August 21, 1980. I will address each of the items individually. 1. Buffer of at least 100 feet and more at acute meander areas. The applicant's concerns in this area are the same as yours I feel. You can rest assured that he does not want the Yampa River cutting into and running through this operation. Your request for a minimum 100 feet buffer is very reasonable. At the present time I am preparing a 404 Dredge and Fill Fermit to allow the operator to install riprap in areas of acute meanders. This should help preserve the integrity of the operation. The Corps of Engineers has inspected the site,and cve do not expect any trouble in having the Permit issued. If you would like, I would be happy to send you a copy of the application. 2. Irregular shorelines and shallow to encourage wildlife and waterfowl. The applicant is working with an architect to help with plans for the private recreation area when excavation is complete. [dildlife and waterfowl will be a concern. The operator has already planted fish in a portion of the Craig Pit Expansion with excellent growtlc results and the same tlcing should work here. 3. Affect on local water table, adjacent wells, or overflow regime.of the Yampa River. I•Iith the caide, flat topography of the flood plain, tlce applicant has no reason to believe that there could be any negative impact on the hydrology. i1o concern of this type Icas been voiced by any of the agencies contacted including the Corps of Engineers, SCS or the Colo. Division of [dildlife. The closest well is at a dwelling owned by the operator and he certainly caould not consider destroying that. 4. Division of c•]ater Resources comments. The same formula was used on this application as on the Craig Pit Expansion, and tlcis was approved by tice Board. The applicant has demonstrated suffic- ient water ri,vhts to cover evaporation loss and process water.