REV00251

• Permit No: M1977141
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 4/9/1984
• From: BRADLEY CAMPBELL & CARNEY
• To: MLRD
• Type & Sequence: HR1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~•
~•
(iii) Outlining the sequence in which each stage or phase of the
operation will be carried out."
Section 34-32-105(4) provides:
"The board shall have jurisdiction and authority over all persons and
property, public and private, necessary to enforce the provisions of this
article."
In order to determine items (i) through (iii) of Regulation 2.12(4)(e),.
the applicant must receive landowner's permission to construct new roads
to access areas 3 and 4. Therefore, the mining plan is incomplete until
such landowner approval is obtained.
5. Is the application as proposed contrary to the laws or the
regulations of this state or of the United States (34-32-115(4)(c), CRS 1973,
as amended), in that:
a. Reclamaf.ion of the Niwot Soils Area as cattle range land and not
as hay meadow would not be reclamation as that term is defined? See
34-32-103(13), CRS 1973; as amended.
b. Andesite is using a water right or water rights without
permission of the owner? See 37-89-101, CRS 1973, as amended.
c. Andesite's ponds are unregistered wells in violation of
37-90-137, CRS 1973, as amended?
d. Andesite is using a water right for a purpose which is not
permitted in the decree adjudicating the water right? See Fort Lyon Canal Co.
v. Catlin Canal Co.. Colo. 642 P2d 501. 506 (1982).
e. Andesite's plan does not include reclamation of pond sites,
private ways, roads and areas in which structures, facilities, equipment,
machines, tools or other materials or property are situated,.and these are
affected lands within the meaning of 34-32-103(1), CRS 1973, as amended and
such reclamation is required. See 34-32-112(3) and 116(1)(k), CRS 1973, as
amended.
f. Andesite's plan does not provide for reclamation of the present
St. Vrain River channel and restoration of the river to its original channel?
See 34-32-112(3) and 34-32-103(1), CRS 1973, as amended.
6. Should the application be denied because the proposed mining
operation and reclamation could not be carried out in conformance with the
requirements of 34-32-116, CRS 1973, as amended (See 34-32-115(g), CRS 1973,
as amended) in that:
a. The reclamation plan prepared by the operator is not based on
provision for or satisfactory explanation of all general requirements for the
type of reclamation chosen? See 34-32-116(1)(a), CRS 1973, as amended.
b. Operator's plan does not revegetate the land in such a way as to
_2_