Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Letter to Joseph de Raismes 10 Mav 3. 1995 <br />the lightly ripped furrows would tend to bury the seecls too deeply. <br />This problem was reevaluated during the Division's April 28, 1995 <br />inspection, when the configuration and disposition of t:he ripped and <br />seeded site could be observed. It was decided that the operator <br />would "harrow" the entire site by dragging a pipe or other such <br />implement behind a tractor or small dozer. This will smooth the <br />reclaimed surface, and provide greatly improved seed-to-soil <br />contact. It should also be noted that a less efficient.seed-to-soil <br />contact when broadcast seeding as compared to dri:Ll-seeding is <br />precisely the reason why seeding rates are ~9oubled when <br />broadcasting, and is the reason for the high pound per acre seeding <br />rate proposed for the Jenkins Site. Your statement that "the site <br />may never return to rangeland" is also disconcerting, in that the <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act specifies that the site be <br />returned to a beneficial use, and the beneficial use specified for <br />the Jenkins Site is rangeland. Please be assured that if the spring <br />1995 seeding is not successful in meeting this requirement, <br />additional reclamation measures will be implementE;d until the <br />performance standards of the law are achieved. <br />12. In concern item number l0 of your April 21, 1995 letter, you raise <br />the issue of a conflict of interest on the part of Bradford Janes, <br />consultant to the operator, and cite the change in Mr. Janes stance <br />on the need for mulch to reclaim the site. It is not for the <br />Division to decide whether Mr. Janes has a conflict of interest or <br />not, and the allegation made in this regard should be taken up with <br />Mr. Janes if you choose to do so. The Division doer not believe <br />that the issue of conflict of interest is germane to bringing the <br />site into compliance with the Mined Land Reclamation Act and the <br />Mineral Rules and Regulations. When Mr. Janes recommended mulch for <br />this site in 1986, it was assumed that the operator would be <br />replacing a screened plant growth medium, into which a straw or hay <br />mulch could be crimped. Since the plant growth medium available at <br />the site is very rocky, crimping would be largely ineffective, and <br />most of the mulch that may be applied would be blown of'f the site by <br />. only moderate winds. In order to compensate for the lack of mulch, <br />the operator has lightly ripped the entire area to bra seeded, and <br />has incorporated a cover, or nurse crop into the seed mix. This is <br />a strategy that the Division considers prudent. <br />Also included in item number 10 of your list of concerns is the <br />disingenuous statement that: <br />There is no reasonable way that a mining operator who has <br />already demonstrated disregard for the terms cf the mining <br />permit and has exceeded the allowable area for major <br />disturbance by a factor of 700 can undertake and complete <br />satisfactory reclamation and meet the long-term nE:eds of public <br />Open Space. <br />