Laserfiche WebLink
~~ <br />il~:FSTTe IvspecTlnn ~:\RRTIt~F _' <br />width. Using conservati]-e ficures, I ca]cu]ar? [hat the operator has <br />spoiled 3, 500~t'a~ds of topsoil and ur a subsoil substitute that will be <br />needed to resoil the distburbance as ;t is reclaimed <br />Th? State officials and the operator disnrree that it is a tiolation <br />because there is a mine elan approval to build rite diversions without <br />sal;aginging the soil for redistribution. That was based on t~:o <br />factors. One being, State regulations in Section 4.OG.212) of the <br />Ci,lorado Cow; .'line Regulations i.nciicates under the materials to he <br />reino~ed section of their cede, that "areas which mac qualify for a <br />carinnce" ....Prom topsoii or an •~pproved sui?soi]. substi wte removal <br />prir.r to disturbance are: (1) ;trews where light traffic does not <br />d.esCrot e:;ist ins ~: egetatien er muse erosion; l"L) ara,ls ;:here remora]. <br />~:oc]d result in needless damage to soil characteristics; o: (3) areas of <br />.:.nstruction of srtal.l structure:: sur_h as po~•:er poles, signs or fet:ce <br />iinas. T!: r. second reason mentipned r,;, the o!,erato: ~•nt mgt v.icressu,! in <br />the r~ti n~- nl.ar. ar,rnc.;1 is tt:c safntc r_or.s id?ration fur rho, riez~=~ <br />operator during construction of lain diversions which would be <br />compound?d b~• ,tddition~;l ~.:nrk nr:eded. ro -.,~- t,._;s"ii. <br />Their mine plan aphrecal of +•hich the !:,e*rine;a: _'~.cer,,L is included in <br />this report as attache~:nenr '•q^ rNads nr-. fullogs, " a ~:arv+nce fn:ni <br />rousoil remmal is requested....for tits foliowinp. areas...~~her? rentcnal <br />rmuld result in nee~9less damaf~e to sail chara+~.ter.stic.<, stub '.,, <br />s?diment control ditches and sna11 water ~liversiens". The mine plan. <br />e~.c?rpt roes. on, ... to indicate *.hat remoeal of rnnsoll ;?rlor to d~iteh <br />consr.niction i1P.ed1P.551V damag?s late? areas o[ topsoil prier to ditch <br />construction along _ith ad.jacer,t natural .~,~?tn[ion. <br />I disagree with their premise, "salsa^in:; t~psoi] anti or a^ ap!,roved <br />topsoil substitute can be waited in this matter because apl,reval seems <br />is based on the far.tor that additional disturbance for topsoil salvage <br />from the ditches will affect additional wren and dzstor; vegetation <br />needlessly". In the comment section of the promulagation of the <br />comparable Federal regulation, of which a ci,p} is attached, as <br />attachment "R", indicates .. "destrocing existing vegetation" refers to <br />determining whether the disturbance is minor or not. It does not mean <br />[hat topsoil should only be saved if topsoil removed will not destroy <br />vegetation. The pertinent comments in the Federal Register in <br />attar_hm?nt "R" have been highlighted. To Further e~aend me point in <br />thi=. matter, I have tracked the diversion across the soil topes as <br />prodded in the mine plan (DRWG +~0. ti soils south sheet) and with the <br />cnrres!~,ondin;l proposed location of *.he diversion as pro~;ided by the <br />operator. The major portion of the ditch was cut i^ soils, (ahont 5,500 <br />feet) 14E-Rurnotte Luam ~,!,ich is d?ccribe,l as nccnrrne on 12 to 25 <br />percent slopes with useable soil d?gibs Orr.^rri„o to depths of 20 feet, <br />which is also the best and most a!?unrlant source cif plant growth medium <br />of the soils on the permit area. Present and potential productivity of <br />this soil is good. The petit soil affected h. the ditr.h cons[n+ction in <br />the amount of disturbance (about 4,750 feet) is soil tyn? ]4F-Rurnefte <br />Loam, Orellrs O^ 25 [0 65 percent slopes ,..ith t..piral surface lac?rs of <br />::0 inches in thickness. Present and uotential productivity of this soil <br />