Laserfiche WebLink
<br />M1 • <br />Gold Hill Town Meeting 2 June 9, 1995 <br />Land Reclamation Act and the Mineral Rules were written to be applied <br />primarily to mining operations. In the case of the Gold Hill Mill, they <br />must be applied to an operation that has yet to specify the source of its <br />mill feed. The notion of permitting the Gold Hill Mill under the Mined <br />Land Statute and Rules has been approved by the Mined Land Reclamation <br />Board, indeed, the Board has ordered that such a permit be obtained. It <br />is the Divisions view that the operator of any permitted site could avail <br />themselves of the Temporary Cessation provisions. Temporary Cessation is <br />not available to operation's where no mineral reserves remain in the <br />operation. This is intended to preclude an operator from unduly delaying <br />site reclamation. This same concept could be extended to the Gold Hill <br />Mill if at some point it becomes clear that there exists little or no <br />potential to secure a source of ore. At that point, the operator could <br />be required to reclaim the site under Section 34-32-116(7)(q) C.R.S. <br />3. In item no. 3 of the April 10, 1995 letter, the Committee requested <br />clarification of the Division's policy regarding potential post- <br />operational beneficial uses of mine or mill buildings. It is the <br />Division's view that the Gold Hill Mill building could be put to a variety <br />of beneficial non-milling uses, and as such would allow the building to <br />remain as a post-operational feature in accordance with the land-owners <br />desires. However, the question has been raised as to whether or not post- <br />operational use of the mill building would be allowed under county zoning <br />regulations. In a case such as this, the Division requests an opinion <br />from the county (or other land-use authority) as to whether the building <br />could remain. Please find enclosed a letter from Boulder County Land Use <br />Department which gives a preliminary indication that the building could <br />be allowed to remain at the site. The bottom line on this issue is that <br />if the county notifies the Division that the building must be demolished <br />at the time of reclamation in order to comply with land use regulations, <br />then the Division will incorporate a cost for demolition into the amount <br />of bond required for the site. In the interim, no bond for demolition <br />will be required. <br />4. As you note in item no. 4 of the Committee's letter, seepage <br />collection trenches would be unnecessarily redundant for a lined pond. <br />The Committee then recommends that piezometers be installed as an early <br />warning system for any leakage through the pond liner. It is the <br />Division's view, that in order for piezometers to detect any small leaks, <br />they would have to be spaced so closely as to impose unnecessary <br />difficulty on the operator, and that any large leaks can be detected <br />through visual observation on the downstream face and on the ground below <br />the dam, and ultimately through monitoring of the down-gradient wells. <br />5. The Committee's point in item no. 5 of the April 10, 1995 letter, <br />regarding mill building containment, is well taken. The Division will <br />require containment at all potential outlet points. <br />6. Item no. 6 of the Committee's letter raises the issue of containment <br />at the Hazel-A bulkhead. It is the Division's view that the water behind <br />