My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-05-09_REVISION - M1987038
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1987038
>
2008-05-09_REVISION - M1987038
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:45:56 PM
Creation date
5/13/2008 9:38:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1987038
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
5/9/2008
Doc Name
Preliminary Comments
From
Maynes, Bradford, Shipps & Sheftel, LLP
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM5
Email Name
KAP
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 3 May 7, 2008 <br />conditional water rights for the ponds located on the property, statements of opposition have <br />been filed by both the Tribe and the Pine River Irrigation District. Therefore, whether any of <br />these water rights will be granted is wholly speculative and may not be relied upon to show <br />compliance with applicable water law as required by Rule 3.1.6 (1)(a). <br />PERMIT CONDITIONS FOR UNCLASSIFIED GROUNDWATER. <br />On the basis of the Tribe's preliminary review of the permit file, it does not appear that there has <br />been any effort to assess whether the mine has a reasonable potential to affect the quality of <br />unclassified groundwater pursuant to Rule 3.1.7. Because neighboring property is held in trust <br />for the Tribe by the United States, the Tribe is particularly concerned that permit conditions be <br />established pursuant to Rule 3.1.7(2)(c)(ii) to protect against any lowering of the ambient <br />groundwater quality. <br />TorsolL. <br />Although, the Tribe has not yet had the opportunity to review the file in detail, based upon the <br />preliminary review, it does not appear that the Reclamation Plan makes any provision for the <br />removal and stockpiling of topsoil as required by Rule 3.1.9. <br />CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF. <br />Despite having conducted only a preliminary review of the issues associated with the expansion <br />and continued operation of Bayfield Pit No. 1, there is little doubt that important issues regarding <br />this operation merit further investigation by the Board. The apparent inability of the Bayfield Pit <br />No. 1 to operate consistent with the terms of the decreed augmentation plan is a particular <br />concern of the Tribe. Therefore, until the issues raised herein can be properly and fully <br />addressed by the Applicant, the Tribe urges the Board to deny the proposed amendment. <br />Further, to the extent the Board determines after further discussions with the Colorado Division <br />of Water Resources that there has been less that full compliance with the terms of the <br />augmentation plan, the Tribe requests that the Board exercise its enforcement authority pursuant <br />to Rule 3.3.2. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.