2014-06-25_REVISION - M1977522 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Environment, Inc. Page 4 June 25, 2014 L E Star Water Resource. the application form or throughout the remainder of the application (90.63ac).This appears to be due to a 0.27 ac discrepancy between the combined acreage shown on the,map for east and west areas (81 ac),and the acreage reported in item (c)on the first page of Exhibit D(81.27 ac). Please verify the acreage(s)and revise submittal as needed for consistency. Also see comments on Exhibit D regarding total permitted acres. Page 1 of the application form is correct. The map acreage number for the western area is wrong, it should have been 53.19 acres and I forgot to fix the map and text numbers to match when doing the final edits. The 81.27 acres on the.first page of Exhibit D is correct. I have fi ed the area-numbers for the west area on all maps. The acreages in the Reclamation ' Timetable on page 11 have been corrected as needed. I attached the page that was revised and added ded the revision date next to the page`number, EXHIBIT D-Mining Plan(Rule 6.4.4): Exhibit D as submitted proposes to"relocate" a portion of the southern permit boundary,which currently follows the property/section line and runs through the Cache La Po'udre River,to the top of the north bank,of the river.This seems to be a practical boundary adjustment; however this would release the currently permitted north bank area of the river from the permit area. Current DRMS policy does not allow for the release of permitted acreage through the amendment process.Therefore,the permittee will need to release this acreage undera subsequent partial release request (perhaps at the same tirrie,the request for the industrial parcel is submitted) instead of as a part of AM02. For the purposes of AM02,the current southern permit boundary should continue to be used. Please revise the acreage totals and submitted maps as appropriate. A explained above,the existing Permit does not include the river area,the current 75 acre permit boundary uses a setback of 50 feet from the top of the north bank of the river as its southern boundary. This boundary,is shown on the map,but it was never highlighted. The c iffected Map Exhibit C-1 has fixed that oversight and LGE has included this 50 foot setback aiea into the permit area so it can be reclaimed and used to provide a place for the proposed slarrywall. To now include the rest of the river-corridor would place a costly burden on L.G. E erist, Inc.to address a situation that has existed since the new channel was-constructed in 1 76-77. We cannot find any records,that show the'previous permittees had anything to do with this change in the river channel and the permit area was not even close to the new channel until the 1994 amendment was approved by the DRMS. With the future release/adjustment in mind, DRMS will need some additional information before approving the proposed release for the area along the southern property boundary. T'lie Division's files do not support an argument that the river corridor south of the north bank of t e new channel was ever within the permit boundary, so a release for that area is unnecessary. Once this amendment is approved a release request will be filed for the Varra parcel. At what point(what year)was the channel straightened to approximately follow the southern property boundary,eliminating the historic channel that used to flow along the west side and through the center of the current site? When researching the timing of the river relocation I obtained a Farm Services Administration (1 SA)photo dated 1977 that shows-the river was diverted into the new channel at that time. The ;act date of this photo is unclear but considering it came from the Farm Bureau I'suspect it was e in late summer or early fall so they could do crop assessments. I also found a January 24,