Laserfiche WebLink
4. Has the Applicant specified how it will comply with Colorado water laws <br />regazding the protection of existing water rights? (Rule 6.3.3(j) and 3.1.6(1)(x)) <br />The applicant has indicated that no damage will occur to existing water rights as <br />a result of this operation. According to Charlie Judge, Water Commissioner in <br />Water District 13, there are no adjudicated surface irrigation rights located <br />within the permit area or traversing the permit area. In addition, as proposed, <br />the operation will not expose groundwater. Also, prior to initiating use of the off <br />site well identified for compliance with Rule 6.4.7(4), the applicant has indicated <br />they will contact the State Engineer's Office to make application for use of this <br />water for the intended purposes. Based on these responses, the applicant meets <br />the minimum requirements for the protection of existing water rights. <br />5. Does the Applicant's plan minimize disturbances to the quality and quantity of <br />surface and groundwater, including potential impacts from a batch concrete or <br />asphalt plant? Rules 3.1.6(1) and 6.4.7(1) & (2). <br />The applicant has indicated that there will be no impacts to surface or <br />groundwater. Specifically, surface water run-off will be managed with low berms <br />strategically placed to control surface jlows. The applicant has indicated there <br />are no known aquifers near the mining operation. It is the Division's opinion that <br />there may be regional alluvial aquifers associated with Moss and Froze Creeks; <br />however, these will not be exposed in the normal course of mining. Furthermore, <br />the applicant has not indicated the use of any products in this mining operation <br />that would lead the Division to suspect potential surface or groundwater pollution <br />problems. The applicant has indicated that they will be applyingfor a storm- <br />water discharge permit from the Colorado Department ofPublic Health and <br />Environment. These permits typically cover spill prevention and counter control <br />measures for the use of any regulated substance that may be used in association <br />with the mining operation. Therefore, this section meets the minimum <br />requirements of the act and the rules. <br />6. Does the Applicant have approval from the Corps of Engineers for the con•ect <br />location and extent of the proposed operation? Rule 6.4.13. <br />The operator contacted the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers prior to <br />submitting the application for a determination ofjurisdicttonal waters on the <br />project site. The Corps responded in a letter dated September 16, 2002 indicating <br />that they had visited the site and determined there were no waters of the United <br />States located within the project area and there were no Corps of Engineers' <br />jurisdictional waters on the site. In response to a concern raised by an objector <br />about whether or not the proper location had been inspected, the Corps revisited <br />the site on April 21, 2003 and once again determined that no jurisdictional waters <br />of the United States were located within the project area. <br />