PERMFILE54358 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• C~ domestic wells. A slurry wall in active pits would be a minimum requirement for protection. Monitor wells drilled at the applicant's expense and monitored regularly by a neutral third party would be appropriate. ./Proper containment and disposal of mine and plant generated chemicals or other toxic by-products. C7 • The proposed site is within the 100-year Flood plain for the South Platte. The applicant should provide a detailed plan of operation which will protect adjacent and downstream residents from mine or plant produced effluent in the event of periodic flooding of the adjacent South Platte river. • ~VVetlands & Wildlife Habitat; The application should provide a site specific review and identification of jurisdictional wetlands prior to granting the permit. ~he true and full adverse impact of this mining and industrial processing Wi~ operation on critical wildlife habitat contained within the permit area should be fully evaluated by a neutral third party agency. • ~onding; Given the applicants lack of prior experience in the extraction of sand $ and gravel, it is important that the corporation's liability be confirmed. The maximum amount of posting of the required reclamation bond should be required. •, /Reclamation Plan does not reflect current benchmark practice and state-of--the-art v design for mined land reclamation. • The water which would be required for augmentation of the evaporative loss from the lake surface in this reclamation plan is significant. The water is currently 5 available for agriculture production and it would be lost for such purpose in perpetuity. The loss of agriculture water is not compatible with Weld County's Comprehensive Plan. • Two historical sites are located on the property. The applicant does not address any detailed plan of protection/mitigation for these sites. Appropriate protection for the original site must be outlined in the mine permit application. Michael Decker • Water issues will be affected by the operation of this size and duration and statements in the application show no proof of protection to the landowners in the Dated: area. The liability to replace surrounding owners of water rights/irrigation rights Received: February 16, 2001 are not addressed a[ all. • The company and the DBA as an L.L.C. protect the applicant and not the present surrounding landowners. • Environmental issues addressed in the application is vague and non-descriptive.., An environmental impact statement should be provided up front, bringing into play run-on, run-off, discharge, clean water act and NPDES issues with solid (,~U solutions and goals/expectations. • Ina 20-square mile radius there are numerous sites of this type which truly questions the demand and experience of dealing with the business operation. Beth Decker • Afraid that the mining operation will deplete the aquifer that supplies my deep irrigation well. ~~ Dated: • It will create excessive noise and dust, cause pollution from the trucks and Received; February l6, 2001 machinery and create an enormous amount of traffic on my quiet dirt road. • My property value will also be affected negatively. David W. Siple •/ Patina Oil & Gas Corp. is [he owner of certain oil and gas leasehold rights under PATINA OIL & GAS I/ the application lands and operates one oil and gas well on the lands. Patina is ip° concerned about the impact the mining operation will have on Patina's ability to ti'' Dated: February 15, 2001 develop, produce, operate and maintain oil and gas wells on the lands. Received: February 16, 2001 • /Patina has received no confirmation from the applicant that Patina's real property (/ rights [o use a reasonable portion of the surface of the land for oil and gas development are being preserved. ~ Patina is strongly opposed [o any surface development that would require Patina V~ f~,4~ r~ i.P~ ., ~a,-. ~1 ~u 'V` ~ ~J