Laserfiche WebLink
10/22/92 11:00 $505 7662609 OSM ALBUQ FO +~-, MLRD CQ. 002/006 <br />• . <br />`I?\ESITF !..\SPFCTIO\ \ARF;9TIVF <br />Width. Csing con=_ervatite f.ig~ires, I calculate that the operator has <br />spoiled 3, 500~4'~ids of topsoil and or a suUsoil substitute that trill be <br />needed to resoil the disthurhance as it is reclaimed <br /> <br /> <br />The State officia:.s sail the operator disagree thar it is a violation <br />because there is a mine plan approval to build the diversions Without <br />sdlt'i7g10t1nP the soil `.or redistribution. Titat ','as based on L~~o <br />factors. One being, State regulations in Suction 4.06.2(2) of the <br />Colorado Cnal 'line Regnlat. ions i.ndi.cat.es under the materials to be <br />remcved section of their cods, that "areas which mat- qualif}' fo[ a <br />variance" ....from topsoil or an c+pproved subsoil substitute reraocal <br />prior to disturbar.ee are: (1) areas where light traffic does not <br />destroy existing cegetation or cause erasion; (2) areas ,.here re~noval <br />could result in needless damage to soil characteristics; or (3) areas af. <br />co:,stnn:tiun of small structures such as power poles, signs or fence <br />i'_r.es. The second rczscn mentienzd ty the operator bur not actrit ~~s.sn~i in <br />r!te mine oleo a^t, ::•,~-,1, is t!,e _afet} cor.sid?*.arion for the doz~•r <br />operator during .constn,ction of said dicersiotts which t:uuld be _ _ <br />compounded by additional c<nrk u~~ednd [c. s.ir= t~>osoil. <br />Il;eir mine plan apnrnval of which the Pertinent esr_erpt is included it: <br />tltis report-. as attache,r~=nt "A" reads as follows, a variam~.e trem <br />topsoil removal is requested....fnr the fcliowing areas...t:here removai <br />Y:00.1d result in needless damage to soil characr~ristic.=, suc.L ~+ , <br />sediment control ditches and small water diversions". The mine plan <br />~ece*. pt goes on, ... to indicate that removal of topsoil Prior to ditch <br />construction needlessly damages lac@? areas of topsoil prier to ditch <br />construction aL;n@ <<:ith adjacent natural cegetation. <br />I disagree trith their premise, "sal.vaginn topsoil an,i or an al.~provecl <br />topsoil substitute can be waited in t!tis matter because npprov•sl s?ems <br />is based nn the factor that additional disturbance for topsoil salvaee <br />from the ditches will affect additional area anct destory vegetation <br />needlessly". In the com,nent soction of the promulagation of the <br />comparable Federal regulation, of which a cop)' is attached, as <br />attachment "B", indicates .. "destroying existing cegetation" refers to <br />determining whethor the disturbance is minor or not. It does not mean <br />that topsoil should only be saved if topsoil removed will not destroc <br />vegetation. The pertinent comments in the Federal Register in <br />attachment "R" have peen highlighted. To further extend my point in <br />this matter, I have tracked the diversion across the soil types as <br />provided in the mine plan (DRkG K0. b soils south sheet) and with the <br />corresponding proposed location of the diversion as provided b}' the <br />operator. The major portion of the ditch was cut in soils, (ai,o~.rt 5,500 <br />feel; 14F-6urnet.te Loam ~,iticb is described as eccurrin^ nn ].L ro :S <br />percent slopes with useable soil depths occurring to depths of 20 feet, <br />which is also the best and most abundant source of plant growth medium <br />of the soils on the permit area. Present and potential productivity of <br />this soil. is good. The nest soil aff.ecred by the ditch construction in <br />the amount of disturbance (shout 4,750 feet) is soil t~~pe 14F-Burnerte <br />Loam, or_curs on 25 to 65 percent slopes t.ith t;:pical surface lagers of <br />2C. inches in thickness. Present and potential producrit°iry of rhi.s soil <br />,. <br />1" <br />