2014-06-25_REVISION - M1977522 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Environment, Inc. Page 5 June 25, 2014 L E Star Water Resource. 1977 photo in the Colorado Aerial Photo Service (CAPS)archives that'show the channel was nearly complete at that time. It is important to remember that the permit was not issued until 3 23/1978 and then for only 18 acres on the area east of the old river channel. It is clear on both o the 1977 photos that mining had not commenced next to the'newly constructed channel nor as the permit area-adjacent to it when it was constructed. The dark area on the photos is where ir ining was to begin and appears to be a brushy area surround by cultivated fields. This is cl early seen if you use an aerial photo stereo,pair to review the site. I found a 9/3/1980 photo tf at shows the mining activities at the site and the relocated river area,this is a CAPS photo too. is photo is the closest to 1981 that shows the lake area already mined and was used to determine the location of the pre-1981 lake surface area. It matches the 6.1 acres that the Office o the State Engineer has approved in the current Temporary Substitute Supply Plan for the mine. 'Copies of the photos are attached for the file. The FIRM Panel dated 1982 submitted in Exhibit G shows the river in its historic channel. If the river was straightened after this site was permitted In 1977,then Its would state that the permittee Is clearly responsible for the proper reconstruction and stabilization of the new channel within the current permit, regardless if that'area was mined or not. In addition Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)or other regulatory approval may be required. None of the historic permit holders were responsible for-moving-the river. The photo evidence shows that it was completed in the fall of 1977, and therefore happened prior to any permitting being done in the western area that was added in 1994. My research has never uncovered who bys,responsible for moving it in the first place, It appears that FEMA issued an inaccurate map not ground-confirming their mapping. The river had been moved for 5 years before the FIRM map was issued. Furthermore, much of the area through which the river was straightened s completed through parcels of land which were never owned by the permittees. Does the existing northern river bank and site configuration in this area comply with the Weld County and/or City of Greely floodplain development requirements?If the permittee can demonstrate that AC©E approval is not necessary,and that the local floodplain regulatory entity is satisfied with the current configuration,of the river bank in that area, it would certainly facilitate DRMS approval of the subsequent release request. As we have shown above,the river area was never disturbed by an operator of this mine. It is not within any Mined Land Reclamation Board permit issued to date, so asking for release is not n essary. And also,because the river area was never within the permit area, it is not LGE's responsibility to make sure it meets ACOE requirements or is in compliance with Weld County or City of Greely floodplain development standards. I suspect the river move predated any Government floodway regulations in this area. The new channel existed prior to permitting and has been in place for 37 years. It withstood flooding on the river in the past and even the 2013 and 2014 flood events have not overtopped the bank. L.G,'Everist does not propose entering the ri ver to do repairs or make any change to areas that are not within the permit boundary. . The Mining Plan submitted does not discuss any additional mining in the eastern area of the permit; however the reclamation plan map seems to indicate that this eastern water body will be expanded and the shoreline re-contoured. Does the permittee intend to conduct additional mining in this area to expand the lake size?