My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1997-06-05_REVISION - M1981302
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981302
>
1997-06-05_REVISION - M1981302
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2022 4:18:01 PM
Creation date
11/22/2007 1:01:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981302
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/5/1997
Doc Name
ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE CITY OF BOULDER IN CORRESPONDENCE DATED 4-22-97 WESTERN MOBILE
From
DMG
To
FILE
Type & Sequence
AM2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Memo to File M-81-302 -6- June 5 . 1997 <br /> would be considered the prevailing orchid and mouse habitat during <br /> the term of construction materials extraction operations at the <br /> Deepe Farm Pit during the 1980s and 1990s, the dewatering <br /> operations that were conducted to allow dry mining would have had <br /> a much greater potential to lower water table elevations under <br /> surrounding lands than any aspect of either the currently approved <br /> or the proposed reclamation plans . It may then be concluded that <br /> implementation of either reclamation plan at the site would tend to <br /> enhance mouse and orchid habitat over that which prevailed during <br /> that term of extraction operations with appurtenant dewatering. <br /> The City of Boulder has raised a concern related to water rights <br /> for evaporation from the ponds that are a component of the <br /> reclamation plan proposed in the amendment . Obviously, the 4 . 2 <br /> acres of water surface proposed in the amendment application would <br /> experience much less evaporative 'loss than the 38 . 1 acres of water <br /> surface in the current approved reclamation plan. In either case, <br /> the Division has procedures and policies in place to assure that <br /> reclamation plans do not cause injury to existing water rights . <br /> Those procedures and policies include : <br /> 1 . Providing notification to the Office of the State Engineer <br /> upon receipt of any new permit applications or amendments . The <br /> State Engineer routinely reviews new applications and amendments <br /> and provides comments to the Division regarding the potential for <br /> injury to existing water rights. <br /> 2 . When ponds are a component of a mining or reclamation plan, <br /> the Division routinely requires operators to either: <br /> a) Provide documentation that a gravel pit well permit has <br /> been obtained for the operation along with the requisite plan <br /> for augmentation or substitute supply plan, or, <br /> b) provide sufficient financial warranty to cover the cost <br /> of completely backfill the pit to cover any ground water <br /> exposed to the atmosphere. <br /> 3 . Providing notification to the Office of the State Engineer of <br /> all operator requests for bond release, and providing the State <br /> Engineer with copies of bond release inspection reports at sites <br /> where the inspection reveals ground water has been exposed to the <br /> atmosphere. <br /> It should be noted that the State Engineer has primacy over water <br /> rights issues at mining operations, and that the State Engineer has <br /> the authority to issue a cease and desist order to any operator <br /> that exposes ground water without first obtaining a gravel pit well <br /> permit with an approved plan for augmentation or substitute supply <br /> plan. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.