Laserfiche WebLink
Memorandum to Harvey W. Curtis <br />June 14, 2006 <br />Page 5 <br />ground water table that could require dust control measures) should be allowed unless and until the <br />appropriate permits and approved plans have been obtained in accordance with the requirements of <br />the Office of the State Engineer. <br />3. DMG's statement: In its May 5, 2006 (revised June 2, 2006) Rationale for <br />Recommendations for Approval Over Objections, DMG staff stated: "The well onsite is registered <br />with the Office of the State Engineer and has been approved for the amount of water needed from <br />that well." <br />MLRB requirements: Rule 3.1.6(1)(a) requires that disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic <br />balance and to the quantity of water in surface and ground water systems be minimized by measures <br />including, but not limited to, compliance with applicable water laws and regulations governing injury <br />to existing water rights. Section 34-32.5-116(4)(h) of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the <br />Extraction of Construction Materials requires that nothing [in section 116(4)(h), which discusses <br />disturbances to surface and ground water] shall be construed to allow the operator to avoid <br />compliance with other statutory provisions governing well permits and augmentation requirements <br />and replacement plans when applicable. <br />Discussion: In a letter dated April 13, 2006 from W. W. Wheeler and Associates, Inc. <br />(included as part of the Response to First Adequacy Review Comments), the following is stated: <br />"The water supply for the project will be obtained from an on-site well. ... The on-site well will <br />obtain its water supply from the alluvial aquifer of the Middle Fork of the South Platte River." There <br />is no evidence in the application or supporting documents found in the DMG files that any water <br />supply well exists on the site, nor is there any evidence that an on-site well has been applied for or <br />approved by the Office of the State Engineer. The records of the State Engineer's Office were <br />searched for the subject property, and the only permits found for the site were for three monitoring <br />holes. <br />Conclusions: The 112 permit should not be issued without a condition requiring the <br />applicant to fully comply with all applicable water laws and regulations. Specifically, the 112 permit <br />should be conditioned such that no mining or support operations aze allowed until a well permit and <br />accompanying water supply plan or decreed plan for augmentation are approved by the Office of the <br />State Engineer. This includes all operations that could require water (construction ofthe haul road, <br />which could require dust suppression, formation of any stockpiles, and any excavation on the <br />working face(s) of the quarry, as well as gravel washing process and concrete batching (see letter <br />dated April 13, 2006 from W. W. Wheeler and Associates, Inc., included as part of the Response to <br />First Adequacy Review Comments). <br />4. Annlicant's statement: The applicant stated: "Mining is expected to have no impact on the <br />prevailing hydrologic balance." (Exhibit G, Water Information, December 2005112 Permit <br />Application). <br />MLRB requirements: Rule 6.4.7(2)(a) requires the applicant to locate on the map in Exhibit <br />C all tributary water courses, wells, springs, stock water ponds, reservoirs, and ditches on the <br />affected land and on adjacent lands where such features may be affected by the proposed mining <br />operations. Rule 3.1.6(1)(a) also requires that disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of <br />the affected land and of the surroundine azea and to the quantity or quality of water in surface and <br />ground water systems both during and after the mining operation and during reclamation shall be <br />LEONARD RICE ENGINEERS. INC. <br />