2000-09-01_REVISION - M1999002

• Permit No: M1999002
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 9/1/2000
• Doc Name: APPROVAL THE TR 003 AMERICAN SODA LLC FN M-1999-002
• From: DMG
• To: AMERICAN SODA
• Type & Sequence: TR3
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

BEFORE THE MTIED LA'dD RECLAMATION BOARD
STATE OF COLORADO
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
IN THE MATTER OF THE TECHNICAL REVISION APPLICATION OF AMERICAN SODA, L.L.C.,
YANKEE GULCH SODIUM MINERALS PROJECT, PERMIT NO. M-1999-002.
THIS MATTER came before the Mined Land Reclamation Board on August 24, 2000 at Denver,
Colorado for the hearing of an application for technical revision TR-003 to Permit No. 1999-002, a solution
mine permit, pursuant to § 34-32-112, C.R.S. Chris Freeman and Charlie Yates appeared on behalf of American
Soda. Allen Sorenson of the Division appeared in the capacity of staff to the Board. No Objector appeared.
The Board, having considered all the testimony and exhibits, and having been otherwise fully informed in the
premises„hereby finds and concludes as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. During the June 1999 meeting, the Board conditionally approved the application for reclamation permit
M-1999-002. The approved application included a l3 month ambient ground water characterization plan
designed to facilitate the development of permit conditions protective of ground water. The Board ordered
during the June 1999 hearing that the permit conditions protective of ground water be incorporated through
a technical revision process that would ensure the opportunity for meaningful public participation.
2. in accordance with the Board Order, American Soda has provided application for technical revision TR-003
including proposed points of compliance and numeric protection levels protective of ground water present in
the strata overlying the nahcolite solution mining interval.
3. The Division of Minerals and Geology recommends approval of technical revision TR-003 to Permit No.
M-1999-002 with several conditions, which are set forth below.
4. No evidence has been offered that would refute the Division's recommendation. Therefore, the Board finds
that the applicant has demonstrated that its plan complies with Article 32, and Ends it appropriate to approve
the technical revision, subject to the conditions established by the Division.