PERMFILE136536 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Applicants status of"limited liability corporation" indicates that [here is Dated: February 12, 2001 questionable legal liability carried by the applicant Received: February 14, 2001 . Groundwater protection; applicant leaves open the option to change the mining to a dry operation at the discretion of the operator. A dry operation would require dewatering and the applicant does not offer any protection to surrounding property owners or farmers regarding protection of adjacent agriculture or domestic wells. A slurry wall in active pits would be a minimum requirement for protection. Monitor wells drilled at the applicant's expense and monitored regularly by a neutral third party would be appropriate. • Proper containment and disposal of mine and plant generated chemicals or other toxic by-products. • The proposed site is within the 100-year flood plain for the South Platte. The applicant should provide a detailed plan of operation which will protect adjacent and downstream residents from mine or plan[ produced efFluent in the event of periodic flooding of the adjacent South Platte river. • Wetlands & Wildlife Habitat; The application should provide a site specific review and identification of jurisdictional wetlands prior to granting the permit. The true and full adverse impact of this mining and industrial processing operation on critical wildlife habitat contained within the permit area should be fully evaluated by a neutral third party agency. • Bonding; Given the applicants lack of prior experience in the extraction of sand and gravel, it is important that the corporation's liability be confirmed. The maximum amount of posting of the required reclamation bond should be required. • Reclamation Plan does not reFlect current benchmark practice and state-of--the-art design for mined land reclamation. • The water which would be required for augmentation of the evaporative loss from the lake surface in this reclamation plan is significant. The water is currently available for agriculture production and it would be lost for such purpose in perpetuity. The loss of agriculture water is not compatible with Weld County's Comprehensive Plan. • Two historical sites are located on the property. The applicant does not address any detailed plan of protection/mitigation for these sites. Appropriate protection for the original site must be outlined in the mine permit application. Michael Decker • Water issues will be affected by the operation of this size and duration and statements in the application show no proof of protection to [he landowners in the Dated: area. The liability to replace surrounding owners of water rights/irrigation rights Received: February 16, 2001 are no[ addressed at all. • The company and the DBA as an L.L.C. protect the applicant and not the present surrounding landowners. • Environmental issues addressed in the application is vague and non-descriptive. An environmental impact statement should be provided up front, bringing into play run-on, run-off, discharge, clean water act and NPDES issues with solid solutions and goalsJexpectations. • Ina 20-square mile radius there are numerous sites of this type which truly questions the demand and experience of dealing with the business operation. Beth Decker • Afraid that the mining operation will deplete the aquifer that supplies my deep irrigation well. Dated: • It will create excessive noise and dust, cause pollution from the trucks and Received: February 16, 2001 machinery and create an enormous amount of [raffc on my quiet dirt road. • My property value will also be affected negatively. David W. Siple • Patina Oil & Gas Corp. is the owner of certain oil and gas leasehold rights under PATINA OIL & GAS the application lands and operates one oil and gas well on the lands. Patina is