PERMFILE47013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sundance Resource, M-2006-073 Second Adequacy Response April 3, 2007 Page 2 original map and legend provide an accurate statement of the status of the well. The well is properly abandoned, a fact reconfirmed in the process of preparing this adequacy response. For the Division's information, the cited General Note language is a generic note applicable to a broad range of situations. Under unusual circumstances, the COGCC database may not be accurate or current, and occasionally wells are abandoned without proper records filed with the COGCC. Under these circumstances, control of the structure reverts to the land owner by operation of law. That analysis is not necessary in the present case, as the noted well was properly abandoned and control has been relinquished in accordance with COGCC regulatory procedures. Rule 6.4.5 - Exhibit E (1.) Rule 6.4.5(2)(a) requires a discussion of why the proposed type of reclamation plan was chosen. Lafarge with the landowner have decided to change the reclamation type from rangeland and developed water to agriculture and developed water. The Division should disregard previous references to rangeland. For the record, the availability of irrigation water, as noted in the Division's comment, is the primary difference between rangeland and agriculture. The Division is correct to note that the existing use of the land includes irrigated crops; however, these crops are primarily feed for a cattle operation also housed on the site. The Division's determination of the appropriateness of rangeland versus agriculture would serve no other purpose than to dictate the intensity (e.g., head of cattle) of a livestock operation, not the use itself, not the environmental suitability of the use, and not the economic viability of the operation. The Division's review of this land use decision is also, in essence, an attempt to regulate the beneficial uses of water, in potential competition with the intent of providing for developed water on the site. While the applicant will stipulate to agricultural uses at this time for permitting and bond purposes, a wide range of options for agricultural use, including dryland planting and grazing consistent with rangeland, are all viable post-mining scenarios for the site. Rule 6.4.5 - Exhibit E (2.) Rules 6.4.5(2)(d) and (2)(f)(v) require a plan for topsoil segregation, preservation, and replacement depths. Lafarge commits to re-using all topsoil removed and stockpiled so that no topsoil stockpiles remain on site upon final reclamation. Due to significant acreage dedicated to water storage, not needing topsoil application for reclamation, this topsoiling plan will result in post-mining topsoil depths exceeding pre-mining depths in planted areas of the reclaimed site.