|
d) The applicant commits to starting operations no eazlier than 9:00 A.M. during the months of
<br />Mazch and April to minimize disturbance to the Greater Sage-Grouse during their breeding season.
<br />The applicant may request relief from this condition, via a Technical Revision, if furore studies
<br />reveal that some or all site activities may occur prior to 9:00 A.M, without significant impact to
<br />breeding activities. Any request for a Technical Revision related to this condition will include
<br />documentation that CDOW concurs with the study results.
<br />Upon receipt of the new objections received, the Division requested that CDOW provide any new input
<br />and comments related to wildlife issues. CDOW responded by a letter dated October 21, 2006 that
<br />"CDOW field staff has reviewed the information you sent to us on October 10, 2006 regazding the King
<br />Mountain Sand and Gravel Mine. The CDOW first commented to your office on the King Mountain Sand
<br />and Gravel Mine on January 7, 2005. The wildlife issues associated with this azea and the King Mountain
<br />Sand and Gravel Mine have not changed significantly since the letter was written. Therefore, we ask that
<br />you please refer to our letter dated on January 7, 2005." Therefore, no new issues were raised by CROW.
<br />It should also be noted that the applicant has also worked with CDOW through the Routt County Special
<br />Use Permit process to address the onsite and otfsite mitigation strategies that the operator could adopt to
<br />mitigate the impacts to the Grouse habitat.
<br />5. Water Issues: "King Mountain owns the Morse Ditch water right, decreed for 1 cfs for irrigation uses, with
<br />an adjudication date of November 20, 1890 and an appropriation date of July 18, 1889. However, as that
<br />ditch is decreed for imgation purposes only, King Mountain does not own a legal water supply to meet the
<br />needs of the proposed expanding mining operation or to mitigate its impacts." (Hogan & Hanson; June
<br />12, 2006 & James WM. Stovall, P.C.; June 12, 2006)
<br />Division's Response - On November 23, 2004, the Division requested comments from the Division of
<br />Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer (SEO) regazding CN-01. On December 7, 2005, the SEO
<br />provided comments based on staff review of the proposed project. The SEO replied that the applicant
<br />should provide the SEO with the Water Court decree or pending case number for the Smith Creek water
<br />rights mentioned in the application and evidence that the applicant owns the water rights or has consent
<br />from the owner of the rights to use this water as proposed, as well as evidence that the water is decreed for
<br />such uses. T'he SEO also required the applicant to identify the quantity of water to be used on an average
<br />basis on the site and the timing of the use (yeaz-round or seasonal). The applicant may need to file for a
<br />change of water right with the Water Court to use the water as proposed.
<br />The applicant projects that 4,000 to 15,000 gallons per day will be required for dust control. The site will
<br />typically operate from May through October, and the water will be pumped from Smith Creek when "free
<br />river" conditions exist, and purchased or delivered from off-site sources when they do not. Alternatively,
<br />operations will temporarily cease if water is not available.
<br />On Mazch 11, 2005, King Mountain Sand and Gravel further responded to the SEO comments with a letter
<br />from Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison and Woodruff, P.C. ht the letter, they agreed that a change of water
<br />rights or a plan for augmentation to meet the water supply demands of the expanded gravel operation is
<br />needed. Through their consultants, Martin and Wood, they agreed to evaluate the water rights that were
<br />acquired with the King Mountain Gravel property, as well as other water rights, for potential use as an
<br />augmentation source. Once the evaluation is complete, King Mountain will file a Water Court application,
<br />and will also apply to the SEO for approval of a temporary substitute water supply plan to provide a source
<br />of water supply to the gravel operation until a decree is obtained in Water Court.
<br />6. "King Mountain has not submitted maps of tributary water courses, wells, springs, stock water ponds and
<br />ditches on the affected land and on adjacent lands." (Porzalc Browning & Bushong, LLP; June 12, 2006)
<br />Division's Response- Rule 6.4.3 requires that the applicant provide the name and location of all creeks, roads,
<br />buildings, etc.. on the area of affected land and within two hundred feet (200) of all boundazies of such area.
<br />Exhibits C-1 (Pre-Mining Plan Map (Man Made Features) and C-2 (Pre-Mining Plan Map- Natural Features)
<br />
|