REV103085 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lloyd V. "Buck" Barnhart -3- June 5, 1996 Exhibit D claims that this amendment removes the 76.31-acre batch plant site from the permit acreage. The applicant revised this paragraph in a letter to the Division dated May 14, 1996, which states, in part, that the batch plant site "has apost-mining use as industrial, and will not have reclamation requirements." The applicant needs to realize two things: one, the batch plant permit area only contains five acres; and two, the existing approved post-mining land use for the batch plant area is wildlife habitat. It may be zoned as an industrial site, but until this amendment is approved (assuming the applicant revises the post-mining land use), the site will have to be reclaimed as wildlife habitat before the Division would consider a release. 6. Exhibit E There is a typographical error in the second paragraph. You state, "pond to the 5" water depth." .It should read, "pond to the 5' water depth." Since Crested Wheatgrass is not part of the approved seed mix, the operator should commit to seeding the topsoil stockpiles with Western Wheatgrass (which is one of the approved species). The applicant did not address reclamation requirements for the excavated wet pits if compliance with Rule 3.1.6 tattoo[ be attained. As stated in Exhibit G, Southwest Ready- Mix, Inc., has attempted to clear up water rights issues for this mine site with the State Engineer's Office since 1985.. It is also stated "that it is unlikely that this manner [sic] can be resolved quickly." The Division is obligated to protect water resources, so if there is any reason to believe that the operatar cannot comply with Rule 3.1.6, the operator must propose a reclamation plan that will eliminate exposed groundwater (backfilling is the most likely option). 7. Exhibit F The reclamation map does not show the existing permit boundary in the NEB/. Section 33- 20S-63W. The applicant needs to revise the map and send copies [o the Division. 8. Exhibit G The applicant needs to respond to the requirements of Rule 6.4.7(2)(c) and 6.4.7(3) and (4). The applicant submitted several copies of correspondence concerning water rights issues. But, it appears the applicant has yet to meet the requirements of Rule 3.1.6 to minimize disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance. If the applicant is unable to satisfy Colorado water laws (acquire a well permit and develop an augmentation plan to replace evaporative losses), the excavated pit will have to be backfilled to above groundwater level. Since the Division does not have access to any water rights (which would be required [o complete the proposed reclamation if the permit is revoked), the operator must commit to backfilling the excavated pits if groundwater is exposed and the operator is unable to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.1.6.