My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL35379
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL35379
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:23 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:18:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2003037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/29/2004
Doc Name
Response to DMG Staff to WestWater Associates Response
From
DMG
To
AGO
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
<br />Page 12, Paragraph 3. <br />~J <br />Reclamation methods and techniques are not part the Petition for Reconsideration and therefore <br />were not considered. <br />Page 12, Paragraph 4, <br />Staff agrees that this statement is not entirely accurate. Mr. Bean does irrigate field to the east / <br />southeast of the mine. However, the acreage borders Phases 3, 4 and possible 5. Based on <br />data supplied by both the operator and opposition, the general flow of groundwater is in a <br />northwesterly direction on the mesa. Therefore, the return /recharge from Mr. Bean's fields in <br />general, probably flows away from the mine towards Mexican Gulch and the unidentified draw <br />directly to the east. There is little or no chance that irrigation from Mr. Bean's fields will have <br />any impact on Phase 1, which is the area directly under review with this Petition for <br />Reconsideration of Stipulation No. 2. <br />12, Paragraph 5. <br />Adjudicated springs would only be affected if groundwater was intercepted and impacted by the <br />mining operation. Staff review of the information presented as part of the Petition to Reconsider <br />cannot identify any scenario where groundwater would be intercepted and impacted, other than <br />the removal of the irrigated fields from production. The lack of irrigation will occur regardless of <br />the mining operation beginning to excavate or not. Installed monitoring wells that are tested <br />weekly and the proposed action level for the ceasing of excavation if water levels rise to a <br />certain height all guarantee that no interception or impact from mining will occur. <br />As for how the irrigation will be reinstalled, that issue is not part of the Petition for <br />Reconsideration. <br />Page 12, Paragraph 6. <br />It is not permitted to catch and store anv water without a Hermit and water rights issued bV the <br />O.S.E. and Colorado Water Court." <br />Any waters collected in a storm event must be released within 72 hours without the proper <br />permits. The operator has committed to complying with ail state and federal laws concerning <br />water with this operation. Percolation and sieve tests show that, unless it was an abnormal <br />event, stormwater would naturally percolate into the ground within 72 hours and thus is believed <br />not to be a problem. <br />Page 13, Paragraph 2. <br />feet?" <br />The approved permit calls for 2 feet of material to be reinstalled if ground water is encountered. <br />The Petition for Reconsideration if approved would commit the operator to 5 feet of material <br />cover. The approval of the Petition would supercede the 2-foot cover commitment with the 5 <br />foot one. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.