Laserfiche WebLink
<br />failure by Battle Mountain to agree to maintain the slurry wall <br />and other reclamation facilities after mining operations have <br />ceased on the property. Similarly, Battle Mountain has proposed <br />to reclaim the east mine pit with a step-like configuration. <br />Battle Mountain's proposal does not comply with either <br />C.R.S. §§ 34-32-116(7) or MLRD concerns. Battle Mountain <br />maintains that the project area "is in many places naturally too <br />steep for cattle," and that the area "has been overgrazed." <br />Since it has been overgrazed, it cannot be too steep for cattle <br />and should be returned to its earlier use. <br />D. Battle Mountain Has Not 9dequately Addressed Replacement <br />Of Topsoils And Subsoils To Reglaim Disturbed Areas. <br />Point Nos. 62 and 64 of MLRD's adequacy letter requested <br />that Battle Mountain commit to segregating topsoils and <br />subsoils. Battle Mountain's response is inadequate to assure <br />revegetation and reclamation of the disturbed areas. In Point <br />No. 64, MLRD staff recommended an additional two-three Eeet of <br />subsoil material to underlie approximately 12 inches of <br />topsoil. Battle Mountain, on the other hand, suggested that the <br />approximately 12 to 18 inches of mixed subsoils and topsoils are <br />sufficient to allow for revegetation of the disturbed areas. It <br />would be premature to approve a permit when these outstanding <br />issues have yet to be resolved. <br />-12- <br />