Laserfiche WebLink
ii <br /> <br />TUE 03 10 PM <br />PETERSEN & PO~tDR, PC 719 542 8515 <br />P. 04 <br />olorado Division of Mining and Geology <br />ebruary' 25, 2003 <br />age. 3 . <br />ngineers has apparently determined that this site ~s a non- <br />- 'urisdictional wetland. Amore thorough review, as~has <br />~, pparently been conducted by the Colorado Departmenr~ of Wildlife, <br />owever, may demonstrate otherwise. For example, Froze Creek <br />lies in'the affected area and lies within the drain~ge basin of <br />he Arkansas River. The application indicates that. <br />xcavation/mining indeed will take place within the channel of <br />roze. Cr.aek~ Thexa are existing decxees for diverai~on of Froze <br />reek surface water downstream of this site which could be <br />dversely affected by the mining activities. The presence of <br />these water rights and others downstream on Grape Cheek may also <br />have bearing on the determination of whether the channel and <br />related wetlands should be considered "waters of the U. S." or <br />"jurisdictional wetlands" for a permit considerations by U. 5. <br />Corps of Engineers. The Colorado State Engineer and Colorado- <br />Water Court for Division 2. have determined that Froze Creek is <br />tributary to the AXkarisas River. Since receiving the permit <br />application, my client's experts have been prevented from <br />evaluating the area for indications of wetland vegetation because <br />of the snow cover currently present. This is of pnr.ticular. <br />' concerns also, in the context of the proposed Donor®te and <br />asphalt hatching plants. <br />. , <br />It;is important to reiterate the Colorado pepartment of <br />Wildlife's recommendation/evaluation concerning maximum <br />excavation areas being in increments .of not greater than five <br />acYes.`-It greatly concerns, my client that this evaluation has <br />been ignored. it loglcallY follows that larger increments of <br />excavation/mining Will have larger wildlife, vegetation, and <br />water impacts thin'would the more restricted recommendations of <br />the Colerado Department of Wildlife. <br />Due to the ~.1?mited water resources in the project area, the <br />application shou d specify the water sources to be used in the <br />washing and trea~ment of the aggragata'to b© mined. Details <br />should also be provided regarding the asphalt and concrete <br />production plans for the area, as w211 as a description of the <br />related water supply requirements and discharge characteristics <br />in terms of both quantity and quality. <br />Tfie application also seeks approval for removal. and sale of <br />topsoil: 'This rgquest, in and of itself, demonstrates a lack of <br />commitment to meaningful reclamation. Topsoil 1s normally <br />required to be saved for site reclamation. Not-only does the <br />application not provide for that ®ventuality, it seeks to have <br />topsoil removed end available for sale. <br />t i <br />i <br />_~ i <br />