Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />3 <br />2.12(5) of the Regulations each suggest that the applicant ". in <br />consultation with the landowner, where possible, ." shall determine <br />how and for what use land should be reclaimed. In this case, there was <br />no consultation with the landowner by the applicant. Furthermore, the <br />applicant has devised a reclamation plan not in conformity with the <br />permitted and intended use of the property. <br />4. The application states that the proposed operation is not <br />expected to directly affect surface or ground water systems. It is <br />impossible to determine the source or basis of this expectation. Mount <br />Carbon Water and Sanitation District has an adjudicated well in the area <br />which is expected to provide water service to anticipated development. <br />The applicant should be required to more fully address the potential <br />pollution of ground water recognizing the nature of the ground water <br />resources and rights in the area, all pursuant to C.R.S. (1973) 34-32- <br />116(h) and Rule 2.12(7) of the Regulations. My clients believe that <br />there may be disturbances to the quantity and quality of water caused by <br />the mining operations. Again, it is impossible to fully articulate and <br />specify these concerns without the opportunity to study the full submission <br />made by the applicant. <br />For all of the reasons specified herein, my clients object to and <br />protest the issuance of a mining and reclamation permit to Robinson <br />Brick and Tile. We respectfully state that the application in this case <br />should be denied, or, in the alternative, the application should be <br />continued and set for hearing. <br />Sincerely yours, <br />GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY & ASSOCIATES <br />~-~ /~~~. <br />Scott D. Albertson <br /> <br />SDA/bdc <br />