Laserfiche WebLink
In response to the State Engineers Office the applicant stated in the original application <br />that ground water was unlikely to be intercepted and exposed. The applicant also stated <br />that if ground water was intercepted that mining would stop at that location and not be <br />mined again. This is still the stance of the applicant and the applicant will commit to the <br />statement above. The elevation differential is more in the range of 30 feet from the <br />leading edge of the pit The Oxford ditch is to the south of the Arkansas River for the full <br />length of the permit boundary and it would more likely be the receiving drainage for any <br />ground water. Since the applicant will not and does commit not intercept any ground <br />water an augmentation or approved water supply plan seems unnecessary. The applicant <br />based upon empirical data from the area ranchers and others believe the ground water is <br />approximately 40 below the surface of the mine site. The report by Young Technology <br />Group will help expand on this question. <br />9. In reply to the letter from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation dated <br />October 16, 20(Y7, the applicant will report any cultural resource that may be discovered <br />in the excavating of this mine. The applicant does understand the requirements under <br />State Law CRS 24-80 part 13 do apply and must be followed. <br />Rule 1.8.1 <br />(4) 1f the Office determines that additional information is submitted by <br />the Applicant for the purpose of Beta ft. clarifying or explaining <br />any past of the application, whether at the request of the Office or <br />otherwise, then such additional information shat not consMde a <br />change or an addifim resulting in an amendment or technical <br />revision to the application- <br />The applicant believes that this adequacy response was to detail, clarify and explain parts <br />of the application. Therefore the applicant does not deem it necessary to make any <br />changes at the Pueblo County Clerk and Recorders Office. No major changes in the scope <br />of the original permit application where made. Secondly no additional acreage was added <br />to the permit area. <br />Since , <br />3oe ffagli o <br />Consultant <br />Cc. c N7rENmAL sT.ATES PAvi , iNc. <br />Roy waWwn DKIMS <br />EwIosunXs): Young Techudogy Group Repcxl, Ea-MW -.% ads, Bridge drawings and specifications