Laserfiche WebLink
Page 14 <br /> Clearly, the statute and the regulations provide that the operator may modify approved <br /> reclamation plans during the term of a permit through the amendment process, and <br /> further provide that it is the operator, in consultation with the landowner, that develops <br /> the specifics of any proposed reclamation plan. The current landowner, University of <br /> Colorado, in a letter dated June 10, 1997, has endorsed the operator's proposed <br /> reclamation amendment. It is then the Division's responsibility to determine if the plan <br /> proposed by the operator is adequate to achieve the post-mining land use selected by the <br /> operator and to meet the performance standards of the statute and regulations. Based <br /> on this analysis, the City of Boulder's concern that the pending permit amendment is a <br /> digression from the original reclamation plan intent is not a basis for denial of the <br /> amendment application. <br /> ISSUE 4 Whether the Amendment adequately addresses impacts on groundwater levels and <br /> irrigation flows. <br /> Comment: "The presently approved Augmentation Plan is inconsistent with the proposed <br /> Amendment and thus violates Section 34.32.5-116(4)(h) and Construction Materials <br /> Rule 3.1.6." <br /> Response: The proposed amendment will result in a reduction of 33.9 acres of water surface, <br /> therefore, reducing the amount of water required for augmentation. The Office of the <br /> State Engineer, which has jurisdiction over augmentation plans, has been notified of <br /> the proposed amendment by the Division. They have not contacted the Division with <br /> any concerns about the augmentation plan. <br /> Act citation 34.32.5-116(4)(h) reads as follows: <br /> "(h) disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land and <br /> of the surrounding area and to the quality and quantity of water in surface and <br /> groundwater systems, both during and after the mining operation and during <br /> reclamation, shall be minimized. Nothing in this paragraph (h) shall be construed to <br /> allow the operator to avoid compliance with other statutory provisions governing well <br /> permits and augmentation requirements and replacement plans when applicable." <br /> The Division has determined that there will be no significant negative disturbances to <br /> the hydrologic balance, based on the discussions with representatives of the State <br /> Engineers Office and the review of well permit issued by that office for the Deepe Farm <br /> Pit. Moreover, the Division has not identified anything in the amendment application <br /> which could be construed to allow the operator to avoid compliance with other <br /> statutory provisions governing well permits and augmentation requirements and <br /> replacement plans, when applicable. The Rule citation 3.1.6 requires that disturbances <br /> to the prevailing hydrologic balance be minimized and that the operator comply with <br />