2002-04-05_REVISION - M1976020 (2)

Home Browse Search

R~~~`°d Rick W. Mayo` ' 2424 Spalding Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30350 Mr. Wally Erickson Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology 701 Camino del Rio #125 Durango, CO 81301 APR ~ $ ?dpi 'f '~'~F o/AyRer~ ~ !~l/coel~,~ ~~/~ '1 M-/596-oz a~ AM-a7 y ~( / i9 Dear Mr. Erickson ~'o u r Co r LteY s ~~ 1e W~ LS ~ Obj e~~ia~ fo ,/~pPlicc~7~>m~ ~ I have reviewed the current 112 permit application for the Thomas Pit. My comments deal with the issues that relate to the general health and welfare of the Animas River, the water rights and property rights of those land owners affected by the proposed mining activity, and as such, may cross jurisdictional boundaries between the Army Corp of Engineers and the Division of Minerals and Geology. As the private landowner immediately south of the proposed new site for a pond excavation and mining operation by Four Corners Materials, Inc., I have grave concerns about the impact on my property, my river banks, water quality and a whole host of wildlife and other riparian issues. The proposed 4 acre lake, appears to be unlined, has apparently no set back requirement, such that it will sit virtually "on" their south property line, (our common border) and could possibly leak, leach and deposit minerals and substances of unknown varieties and origins, directly on my land. After harvesting the gravel from this temporary mining operation, the pond then intends to serve as a settling pond for the future in-stream mining, crushing, "washing" and processing, of an ongoing gravel mining operation. Surely there is some protection or insulation that can be brought to bear on this type of rnmmercial operation immediately adjacent to a residential/agricultural property. Perhaps a setback of sufficient distance could mitigate the potential effects. - - In addition, the ammendment to the permit application, dated March 12, proposes to eliminate the 200 feet of the "armoring" on the lower end of the lake's dike. This reduction of armoring cannot be replaced, as suggested, by the young cottonwood growth that currently exists in the area. Cottonwoods are a joke. One need only to look at the huge number dying off as result of the lowered water table in the immediate area. A major flood event would lay waste to them. If the reduction in the length of armoring, to Less than 500ft, is for the purpose of qualifying for a more expeditious National Permit form of application, then all the more reason to take the time to review the total impact of this proposal. I ask for a delay in the processing of the permit in order to allow for a public forum to review these issues. The unarmored bank or dike position appears to be directly in harms way, where the diverted water in the main channel will re-mnnect. The erosion and envision of that berm is imminent. Geologists that I've spoken with, believe the 1-aft below grade