PERMFILE129080 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Dcp,ulment of Nanual Resources L313 Sherman 51.. Runm 215 Dcmer, Coluraclo ril)'20J Phone: 1301) rifiGJ5fi7 FAX: IJDI) ri32~7S106 September 17, 1999 Mr. Rick Snook, County Administrator Cheyenne County P.O. Box 567 Cheyenne Wells, CO 80810 RE: Rother Pit )File~~ij83~ Review of County 2°d adequacy response Dear Mr. Snook: On September 17, 1999, the Division received Cheyenne County's fax response to the Division's review dated September I5, 1999. The Division acknowledges the evidence provided of the filing of changes to the application for the pit with the Cheyenne County Clerk and Recorder. GEOLOGY ~ RECLAMATION MINING•SAFETY D ICI SIGN OF MINERALS BJI Owens Onvernur Greg E. tValcher Esecmive D~recmr ntichael B. Long Dwisian DueUnr As before, the Division requesu that original material, not facsimile, as well as the green cards indicating receipt of correspondence be sent for inclusion in the permit package. As for the adequacy issues addressed by the County's response, the following remain to be resolved: EXHIBIT C, Rule 6.3.3 (k): The Rule requesu a description of how refuse, acid or toxic materials will be handled if exposed not whether or not, in the opinion of the County, that they will be exposed. The County should respond to the specific requvement of this rule. EXHIBIT C, Rule 6.3.3 (I): The Rule requires a response that should be consistent with and/or supplement [hat made for Section (i) in which the County says no ground water will be intercepted due to slope and water runoff and surface water will be retained in the pit for only short periods of time. The Division accepu that the reclamation proposed will provide for a stable configuration of the reclaimed pit. The Division will accept that the pit iuelf will capture much of the local surface runoff in the pit area thus minimizing impacts on local surface water quality and that the brief retention of water in the pit will minimize impacu on the quantity of local surface water. What, however, is the basis for the County's claim that no ground water will be intercepted. Slope and storm water runoff play little or no part in whether groundwater will be encountered by the pit but the depth of the pit relative to the local depth of ground water would. There is groundwater N the area; there are stock wells indicated on the index maps provided with the permit application. The County should indicate the approximate depth of groundwater in the area and provide a commitment not to mine to or below that depth in order to claim that the pit will not intercept any groundwater and there will be no disturbance to the quantity or quality of water in the local groundwater system, i.e. that there will be no disturbance to the hydrologic balance. EXHIBIT E•MAP, Rule 6.2.1: Among the materials faxed there is a map with a scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet that essentially meeu the requiremenu of this Rule, however, the map lacks a title, The Division believes that this map is intended to serve as the Exhibit E-Mine Plan Map and will accept i[ as such if the County will confirm that assignment.