PERMFILE104264

• Permit No: M1996049
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 9/16/1996
• Doc Name: L G EVERIST 112 RECLMATION PERMIT APPLICATION
• From: ROBERT A WYLER
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• iii iiiiiiiuiiu iii •
989
v- N z ~ t~~r,
ROBERT A. WYLER
1800 ROAD 1351 , . ~ , ,
SILVERTHORNE, CO 80498
[phone]
September 16, 1996
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Re: L.G. Everist 112 Reclamation Permit Application
Ladies and Gentleman:
The purpose of this letter is to submit for your consideration the following
comments to the above referenced permit application:
1. The referenced permit application should be denied under Section 34-32-
120 CRS. In recent discussions with management of the operator-applicant, it was
confirmed that certain hydrocarbon discharges to ground water in applicant's current
operation have not yet been remedied. As such discharges are in violation of the Colorado
Mined Land Reclamation Act, the permit should not be granted.
2. The referenced permit application should be denied for failure to comply
with Section 34-32-102 (1) CRS in that the proposed mine and reclamation fail "to aid in
the protection of wildlife and aquatic resources". Specifically, the finish slopes of the
"lakes" created by the proposed operation and reclamation are a danger to wildlife.
Applicant's Exhibit C, Mining Plan, indicates "Lakeshore will be dug at the 3:1 / 2:1
configuration". Clearly, the proposed slopes are a danger to wildlife, as well as to people,
in that unassisted egress from the "lakes" might not be possible.
3. The referenced permit application should be denied for failure to comply
with Section 34-32-116 (7j CRS, which states that "If the operator's choice of
reclamation is for range, the affected land shall be restored to the satisfaction of the boazd
to slopes commensurate with the proposed land use and shall not be too steep to be
traversed by livestock...." A note to applicant's Exhibit F, Reclamation Plan, states "the
beneficial end land use is rangeland". The proposed slopes are "to steep to be traversed
by livestock", are not commensurate with the proposed land use, pose a danger to both
livestock and people, and, accordingly fail to comply with Section 34-32-] 16 (4) CRS.
4. No information is provided by the applicant concerning prevailing wind. It
is believed that the prevailing winds affecting the proposed mine site emanate from the
west and/or northwest. Since the proposed conveyors, material stockpiles, overburden,
tj: c:/bobcvr