Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Todd Williams, P.E. <br />April 21, 2014 <br />Page 6 of 7 <br />19. Monthly excess recharge credits are dedicated to the SerFer Pit as their primary replacement <br />water source. Submitted accounting must adequately show the monthly amount as a depletion <br />to the Timnath- Connell Pit. As the Applicant owns both the SerFer and Timnath- Connell Pits, <br />combined accounting is acceptable. <br />20. If reclamation of the mine site produces a permanent water surface exposing groundwater to <br />evaporation, an application for a plan for augmentation must be filed with the Division 1 <br />Water Court at least three years prior to the completion of mining to include, but not be <br />limited to, long -term evaporation losses. If a lined pond results after reclamation, <br />replacement of lagged depletions shall continue until there is no longer an effect on stream <br />flow. Granting of this plan does not imply approval by this office of any such court <br />application(s). <br />This office is unsure if mining has temporarily or completely ceased at this site. Prior to the <br />approval of an additional approval of an SWSP for this site, the Applicant should provide a <br />tentative schedule showing eventual mining completion, reclamation of the site (including <br />lining) and the proposed water court process if applicable. <br />21. The Timnath- Connell Pit has been continuously dewatered. Dewatering operations at this site <br />create lagged accretions that mimic its lagged depletions due to the recharge of dewatering <br />water. The Applicant intends to line the pit when mining activity is complete, and none of the <br />currently dewatered areas will be within the unlined lakes after reclamation. Therefore the <br />site should not experience water loss associated with a "first fill" that occurs when unlined <br />gravel pits are allowed to fill with ground water. The Applicant proposes that in accordance <br />with the current dewatering plan, once dewatering at the site ceases, there will not be any <br />post - pumping depletions that must be addressed. <br />22. If dewatering of the Timnath- Connell Pit were discontinued prior to the completion of a liner, <br />the pit would fill creating additional depletions to the stream system and resulting in <br />increased evaporation. Additionally, should an augmentation plan not be obtained for the <br />unlined ponds, long term depletions to the stream system would result. To assure that <br />additional or long term depletions to the river do not occur, a bond for $510,198 for the lining <br />or backfilling of the Timnath- Connell Pit was obtained in 1999 through DRMS. This bond was <br />determined to be sufficient by DRMS during a site inspection on August 31, 2012. <br />23. This substitute water supply plan may be revoked or modified at any time should it be <br />determined that injury to other vested water rights has or will occur as a result of this plan. <br />Should this substitute water supply plan expire without renewal or be revoked prior to <br />adjudication of a permanent plan for augmentation, all excavation of product from below the <br />water table, and all other use of water at the pit, must cease immediately <br />24. In accordance with amendments to § 25 -8- 202(7), C.R.S., and "Senate Bill 89 -181 Rules and <br />Regulations" adopted on February 4, 1992, the State Engineer shall determine whether the <br />substitute supply is of a quality to meet requirements of use to which the senior appropriators <br />receiving the substitute supply has normally been put. As such, water quality data or analysis <br />may be requested at any time to determine if the requirement of use of the senior <br />appropriator is met. <br />25. The decision of the state engineer shall have no precedential or evidentiary force, shall not <br />create any presumptions, shift the burden of proof, or serve as a defense in any pending <br />water court case or any other legal action that may be initiated concerning this plan. This <br />decision shalt not bind the state engineer to act in a similar manner in any other applications <br />involving other plans, or in any proposed renewal of this plan, and shalt not imply <br />