Laserfiche WebLink
MAXWELL MINE <br /> File No. C-013-81 <br /> Response to Draft Findings Document <br /> V. Hydrologic Balance: Surface Water - Rules 2. .04 .5 , <br /> 2 .04 .7 , 2 .05 .3 (4) , 2 .05 .6 ( 7) , and 4.05 <br /> Stipulation 1 . CF&I submitted information on all- <br /> wells registered with the State Engineer which are located in <br /> the vicinity of its mines to fulfill the permitting <br /> requirements . Neither has CFe:T the authority to question an <br /> owner about his well nor has the owner any legal compulsion <br /> to respond to such questions posed by CFR:I . CF&I is capable <br /> of supplying further information by reference only. The <br /> report by W.J . Powell_, 1952 , Ground Water in the Vicinity of <br /> Trinidad, Colorado. Ground-Water Series - Circular 3 , TJSGS <br /> and Colorado Water Conservation Board , Denver, Colorado, <br /> provides a, discussion of use and quality of the ground water <br /> developed , principally along the Purga.toire River. Arthur <br /> Geldon, USGS, Water Resources Division, Pueblo, Colorado is <br /> currently conducting a regional baseline study of the Raton <br /> Basin. His unpublished inventory of additional_ wells in <br /> the vicinity of the permit area is included on the copy of <br /> his field compilation of seeps and springs submitted herewith <br /> in response to the stipulation contained in section VI . A <br /> review of the Powell report and a discussion with Gel-don <br /> should relieve the need for imposing this stipulation on CF&I . <br /> 2 . CFkI finds in none of the regulations cited , a. specific <br /> requirement to "address use, water rights, quality and <br /> quantity of water in the ditches and aqua.d.uct" which are <br /> clearly unrelated to CF&I ' s mining activities . CF&:I ' s <br /> hydrologic address to the impacts of mining on the hydrologic <br /> balance has indicated the effects to be negligible. The <br /> division apparently concurs the effects will be negl_igibl_e. <br /> CF&,I recommends the stipulation be omitted in the revised <br /> findings document. <br /> 3 . Tn the July 1 , 1992 meeting, the division agreed the <br /> design plan and discussion of the Ciruela Canyon <br /> diversion, submitted prior to the application for permit, <br /> would not be required . <br />