2002-04-05_REVISION - M1976020 (2)

Home Browse Search

foundafion of the berm is not sufficient to prevent serious incision and underm;n;ng. It would also seem that the downhill (south and east) banks of the lake, form the "dam" and thus must hold back the forces and pressures of the Iake. So, it should be reinforced and made stronger than the upper reaches, not left without armoring. No part of the lake engineering should be compromuised for the sake of expediancy. The other forces that you are probably already aware of , aze the channeling effects of the river when the flow is restored to the west side and will run between the long existing"dike" and the new armoring feature proposed. It is a scary proposition to be immediately downstream of a manipulated flow channel that no longer enjoys its natural state. An altered, narrower and perhaps higher flow, will have new and different effects on the river over my land, with regard to erosion, the stability of the banks, and the host of other things affected. I am concerned that the comment period ends April 8th, and the mining proposes to begin on April 9th. How can an agency digest the public response and deal with any important issues, if they aze going on with project that quickly? If it is possible for a public hearing, there are many interested neighbors in the Anunas valley, who have a vested interest in the health of the river and the adjudicated water rights that imgate the entire valley, both east and west. Those people would like to be heard before it is too late. Many landowners who have water rights that will be potentially affected, were not even notified of this pending activity. Those who aze not technically adjacent landowners, are, ironically, still adjacent property owners, by virtue of the tact that their adjucated water rights are affected. There is history of water rights being lost due to the impact of the "less than responsible" mining operations in this exact location. I have shared in those losses on the Wallace ditch. They are apparently not retrievable. The migrating head cuts, coupled with the lack of any real recharge of gravel from above Baker's Bridge over the last 6 years, would seem to indicate that the gravel being mined , at the Bar D Pit for instance, is being flushed down stream from the erosion of river banks and beds of landowners upstream. How do we contain the head cut within the permit area? I acknowledge that some of my concerns involve the in-stream mining activity, and are not dixecfly related to the pond permit, however, the rather benign essence of the "pond permit" letter from Four Corners Inc., failed to refer to the in-stream mining proposed in the more complete document on file at the County Clerk's office. Although the in-stream activity is referrenced as a subsequent effort, the property owners all along the river must be concerned about the swiftness with which this kind of thing can occur. Everyone thatI have spoken with on the Sullivan Wallace Ditch, has been surprised to learn that the old permit, that was not renewed in'96-7, could even be reactivated. Public response was huge at that time. A large group of land owners was organized during the last permit application period, and engaged a certified Hydrologist to review the permit areas and the lands affected. His report was filed with the District Engineer of the US Army Corp of Engineers, Mr. John Reese, ini996. I have included a copy of his findings for your review. They seem to substantiate the need for a truly comprehensive plan for the entire 20 yeaz permit, for