Laserfiche WebLink
Rationale for Recommendation for Approval Over Objections <br />'Thompson Resource Pit, Pemut No. M-1983-I02 <br />January 12, 2007 <br />3. "The future of the wells in the azea is a huge concem of mine and with all the neighbors. Most of the wells are <br />only SS to 75 feet deep. We aze all very concerned about possible contamination, and the possibility of the pit <br />digging into the ground water. We also know that in the event of hitting the ground water, it could be <br />catastrophic to our water supply...Another concem of ours is the rights to the water which the pit plans to use <br />as wash water for washing gravel." (Mark and Lisa Mirabito, Bill and Jill Hansen, Bill and Sharon Sparlin, <br />Dick and Yolanda Prather, and Bill Goodwin, October 31, 2006) <br />4. "Our main concem and the only one I understand your entity would even consider, is in regazd to our wells. <br />T'he Thompsons and Pratt aheady hit ground water at the existing site, were pumping out of it since Spring and <br />covered it up to your satisfaction...Regazdless of what is alluded to by the applicants and their paid <br />hydrologist, ground water was hit and had been used (they were pumping out of the ground). They were also <br />operating without official water rights." (Sharon and Bill Spurlin, November 1, 1006) <br />5. "We the undersigned object to the expansion of the Thompson Gravel Permit to Lots 5 and 6 of great Divide <br />Head Lettuce Colony and agree with all the letters sent by Spurlm's, Mirabito's, Hansen's, and Christine and <br />Scott Holley regarding the water."Richard and Yolanda Prather, William Goodwin, Joan Holley, November 1, <br />2006) <br />6. "...I am writing to confirm that Mazk and myself would like to be on record that we are still objecting to the <br />amended application for the Thompson Pit. This is based on the 21 previous letters dated on August 31 and <br />October 31 2006." (Lisa Mirabito, November 1, 2006) <br />Division's Response -The above statements from the various objectors have been grouped together and will <br />be addressed by the Division in a single response as they all relate to exposure of ground water, water rights, <br />and potential impacts to the existing ground water table. <br />The objectors concern that ground water has been exposed in the past on this site is a valid point. <br />Representatives from the Division reviewed documentation of ground water exposure submitted to the Division <br />by the Spurlins on August 31, 2006 then inspected the site on September 5, 2006 and found evidence that the <br />operator had in fact exposed ground water. However, at the time of the inspection, the ground water had been <br />covered up in accordance with Stipulation No. 5 of the existing permit. The Division therefore, considered the <br />situation resolved. In addition, the Office of the State Engineer (OSE) has reviewed this case and determined <br />that no further action is warranted at this time. <br />The applicant is required by law to minimize disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected <br />land and of the surrounding azea and to the quantity or quality of water in surface and ground water systems <br />both during and after the mining operation and during reclamafion (Rule 3.1.6). The Division believes that the <br />operator has adequately demonstrated in their initial amendment application and subsequent adequacy review <br />responses that they will minimize impacts to the hydrologic balance and ground water system. Specifically, the <br />operator has conunitted to not exposing ground water by maintaining the pit floor at least 2 feet above the <br />current ground water table. In addition, the operator has committed to monitoring the ground water table prior <br />to mining in the expanded area to establish the pre-mining ground water table elevation. Quarterly monitoring <br />of the ground water table elevation will continue during mining. Monitoring of the ground water table will <br />consist of quarterly measurements to detemtine the elevation of the ground water table in the existing Hahn <br />well, which is owned by Thompson Properties. This well is located up gradient of the current mining operation <br />but down gradient of the Spurlin's well. Any impacts to the ground water table will be observed in this well <br />prior to impacts to wells up gradient of the mine site. <br />With respect to use of water for washing gravel, the operator has committed to delaying the installation and use <br />of a wash plant unfil adequate water can be obtained in accordance with all Colorado water laws. <br />3 <br />