Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ir <br />- <br />- <br />- <br />- <br />- <br />~ <br />- <br />- <br />- <br />- <br />- <br />- <br />- <br />~ <br />- <br />, <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />CFAR Meeting- Research Presentation <br />July 17, 2001 <br /> <br />MLRB Hearina. Mav 23. 2001 <br /> <br />At the MLRB hearing in Denver on the Line Camp Gravel Pit the following <br />issues were argued before the board on behalf of CFAR. <br /> <br />1. Cottonwood Mortality <br /> <br />2. Water Quality Impacts <br /> <br />3. Reclamation Bonding Requirements <br /> <br />Cotttonwood Mortality <br /> <br />We argued that dewatering of the gravel pit would lower the water table <br />to the extent that there would be substantial loss of cottonwood trees <br />within the pit boundaries and on adjacent Forest Service and private <br />lands an that this could lead to an increase in flood damage potential <br />and an increase in silt loading of the Dolores River and Mcphee reservoir. <br /> <br />We presented as evidence of this the results of a US Geological Survey <br />study showing that a decline in the water table of as little as two feet <br />could result in cottonwood mortality. A drop of ten feet in the water table <br />at the Line Camp pit is predicted. Pictures of dead cottonwood trees at <br />the Tam I Koenig and Sunnyside pits were also presented as evidence. <br />The board briefly looked at the pictures and totally ignored the USGS <br />study. <br /> <br />Four States Aggregates could offer no evidence in rebuttal and admitted <br />they hadno hard data to support their contention that cottonwood trees <br />could tolerate a ten foot drop in the water table. <br /> <br />We also attempted to argue that based on the applicant,s own hydrological <br />data, damage would occur to cottonwood trees on adjoining federal and <br />private lands and that some provision for compensation should be established <br />as a condition to the application. We were cut off by the board which stated <br />that collateral damage issues were outside of their pervue.This is in clear <br />contradiction to the provisions of the Construction Materials Act which <br />governs gravel pits and which states that the permit applicant must show that <br />there will be no off-site impacts from the gravel mining operation. <br /> <br />Water Quality ImDacts <br /> <br />Regarding water quality impacts, the issues we planned to address were <br />as follows: <br />