Laserfiche WebLink
The importance of this information is evidenced by the <br />State's concern about hydrologic impacts of mining operations, <br />which is reflected in Colorado statutes. Mining reclamation <br />plans must assure that "(d]isturbances to the prevailirrg <br />hydrologic balance of the affected land and of the surrounding <br />area and to the quality and quantity of water in surf ac:e and <br />ground water systems both during and after mining operation and <br />during reclamatio.~ shall be minimized." C.A.S. § 34=3~!-116(7)(8) <br />(1988 Cum. Supp.). <br />Exhibit G of Battle Mountain's Application contains a <br />discussion of the hydrology of the Project area and proposed <br />monitoring on area water systems. However, the Application, and <br />in particular Exhibit G, is utterly silent as to the water <br />sources Battle Mountain will use either to supply the Project <br />~ III <br />water requirements or to replace any water depletions resulting <br />from the mining operations. Furthermore, the Application ~I <br />indicates that Battle Mountain has no rights to any wager I <br />I ';~. <br />sources. Rather, Battle Mountain merely states that it: "will <br />obtain an'augmentat~ n plan to replace depletions to ttre stream <br />~•. <br />system [so that] there will be no injury to these exist:ing water ~ <br />rights," (Vol. 6A, p. 1096), and to augment depletions of _ <br />groundwater which "affect surface water systems." (VO:.. 6A; <br />p. 1099.) As of the March 22, 1989 hearing, however, no such <br />plan had even been filed with, let alone approved by, the <br />-6- <br />