2020-01-28_ENFORCEMENT - M2018051 ‎(4)‎

• Permit No: M2018051
• IBM Index Class Name: ENFORCEMENT
• Doc Date: 1/28/2020
• Doc Name: Board ‎(MLRB)‎ Order
• From: DRMS
• To: Pete Kowalewski
• Email Name: PSH
• Email Name: JLE
• Email Name: CMM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

18. Objector Bijou Irrigation presented testimony regarding concerns that
Applicant's proposed mining plan called for quarterly water quantity and quality
monitoring, which Bijou Irrigation argued was not frequent enough. Bijou
Irrigation also presented testimony raising concerns with Applicant's reclamation
plan, arguing that the site has little top soil, is dry and prone to erosion, and that
the porosity of the sand would allow any contaminants dropped during mining to
affect water quality in Empire Reservoir. Bijou Irrigation suggested mitigating
most of those problems by requiring Applicant to import top soil as part of the
reclamation plan.
19. The Division presented testimony regarding AM-01 and its review of
the permit amendment application. No acidic or toxic materials will be mined or
used in processing, and the inert material proposed for use in processing by
Applicant will not degrade water quality at the site. The Applicant will implement
a spill prevention control and countermeasures plan and a stormwater pollution
prevention plan, which includes paving roads and parking areas as well directing
flows from fueling areas to a settling and treatment pond. The Applicant had
satisfied all of the Division's adequacy review requests, and AM-01 satisfied the
requirements of the Act and the Rules.
20. The Division recommended approving the permit amendment
application AM-01 over objections.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
21. The Board has jurisdiction over Applicant and this matter pursuant to
the Act.
22. Under section 34-32.5-115(4), C.R.S., "the applicant must comply with
the requirements of this article and section 24-4-105(7), C.R.S."
23. Under Rule 1.4.1(10), the Applicant "has the burden of demonstrating
that the application meets the minimum requirements of the Act, Rules, and
Regulations."
24. Under Rule 2.8.1(1) and section 24-4-105(7), C.R.S., "the proponent of
an order shall have the burden of proof." As the party initiating this matter by
filing the Application, Applicant was the "proponent of an order" at the hearing and,
therefore, has the burden to prove that the Application is consistent with applicable
laws and rules, and should be approved by the Board.
Black Mountain Sand Weld LLC
Lost Creek Mine/M-2018-051 4