Laserfiche WebLink
when I contacted CDPHE in May. I have written them to indicate these discrepancies. <br />As of June 13 the applicant had not yet completed their CDOT application for access to <br />Hwy 550; this is a huge component of this project and again, obviously a concern as to <br />which set of numbers they are using on the CDOT application. 87 Loads a day results <br />in almost twice that many actual semi -truck trips as most of those vehicles return for <br />repeat loads. They have the 40 trips a day for potable water when the concrete plant <br />is in operation, and trucks for the asphalt operation, including hauling recycle product <br />into the site. The CDPHE application also has different numbers of topsoil storage and <br />haul road length than the application you have. <br />I would like to reiterate my concern once again in regard to dust from this proposed <br />project. The stockpile of 77,000 tons of topsoil on top of a mesa 300 feet above a <br />valley floor with our far above average winds seems inappropriate at best. The plan <br />does not require this stockpile to be planted for up to one year. If that stockpile had <br />been up there, for example, in the last six weeks, I feel certain that much of it would <br />be down here in the valley. Some sort of consideration must be taken in regard to this <br />issue, I do not know how those things are determined. We have dust days here <br />without this pit where you cannot see the mountain three miles east. The applicant <br />constantly stresses how dry it is up there, and is using our precious resource water for <br />dust control and reclamation. Regardless of the seed mix, it still needs water to <br />germinate. Where is that use accounted for? It is not listed on his "consumptive uses" <br />list. <br />I was interested to see your adequacy letter of June 14 in regard to this permit. As <br />landowners living north of T Road and the new Haul Road, Mr. Roger Noble and <br />myself utilize the same irrigation head gate as the land owner. This water flows north <br />from the west canal over his farmland to our properties, which own water rights. In a <br />local meeting I questioned the haul road location due to this issue and was assured <br />that it was illegal to not allow water access to us. As you have noted, there are no <br />culverts for natural drainage or for irrigation water flow on the newly planned haul <br />road. <br />I do want to note a small typographical error in your #1, clerk listed as Montezuma <br />county rather than Montrose. Just a technicality, of course. <br />#8 is in regard to the sediment ponds. In a public meeting on May 23rd, Mr. Luttrell <br />mentioned when questioned on the issue that he was willing to line these ponds in order <br />to control the selenium concern in this area. The Uncompahgre Valley is a concern in <br />regard to excess selenium in the irrigation water. Has the plan been modified to reflect <br />that? Why would these ponds remain after reclamation when the applicant claims that <br />