Laserfiche WebLink
1. "When the county started mining the material they pushed dirt from the hill and closed a natural <br />spring in the creek that had water in it almost all year round. When I purchased the place in 1961 <br />we watered cattle in the spring until 1978 or 1979 when Lincoln County bulldozed dirt into the <br />spring and ruined it. There was no restitution for the loss of watering cattle there." <br />2. "If you have to expand this pit I want in writing that you will never be allowed to expand it again <br />and that you will restore the spring you have destroyed." <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Response <br />The questions raised by the above comment relates to Sections 3.1.6 and 6.4.7 in the Construction <br />Materials Rules and Regulations. <br />a) Has the Applicant adequately considered potential impacts to the prevailing hydrologic <br />balance specifically, impacts from the operation to the adjacent Hell Creek? <br />The applicant is required by law to minimize disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the <br />affected land and of the surrounding area and to the quantity or quality of water in surface and <br />groundwater systems both during and after the mining operation and during reclamation (Rule 3.1.6). <br />According to the conversion application, there is a 30 foot buffer between the mining operation and <br />the Hell Creek channel. They have currently installed, and will extend a storm water containment <br />berm at the base of the excavation between the operation and Hell Creek. This berm will help prevent <br />sediment from eroding down into the creek. and would help excess run off from storm water to settle <br />and percolate into the soil instead of eroding the creek channel. Overall, the county has committed to <br />not allowing mining activities in or near Hell Creek. <br />Upon inspection of the site, the county has created gentle slopes that run from the southern and eastern <br />permit boundary to the base of the excavation where the area has been flattened out to the edge of the <br />creek. It does not appear that the creek is currently being impacted by the mining operation. In <br />regards to the spring noted in Mr. Brent's objections, it is unknown at this time if a spring existed on <br />the site. There does not appear to be evidence of one within the permit area currently. Also, part of <br />Mr. Brent's objection about additional expansion in the future, this issue is not within the jurisdiction <br />of the Division and the Board as discussed in part "B." below. <br />Division Comment <br />The Division believes that the applicant has addressed the concerns for the hydrologic balance of the <br />site; specifically the impact of the operation on the adjacent Hell Creek. <br />C.R.S. 34-32.5-116 (4) (e) Duties of an Operator: <br />3. "At times the county hauls debris from other places and stock piles it at the pit site. Some of the <br />debris is from burnt houses or who knows where. Some of it is broken concrete and building <br />material with nails etc. This is not good to have piles around where cattle can get to it." <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Response <br />The questions raised by the above comment relates to C.R.S. 34-32.5-116 (4) (e). <br />2