Laserfiche WebLink
g. Potential for off-site damage to river channel and riparian corridor, including <br />man-made structures, resulting from reduction in river channel elevations. <br />(Ott, Pierce, Ritz, Mayo- <br />h. Does the applicant intend to excavate a 230' deep pit in the river? (Pierce) <br />Opposition to any further in-river mining in immediate area. (Ritz) <br />4. Regional In-stream Mining Issues <br />a. Comments regarding cumulative impact of multiple in-stream permits. <br />Request for a comprehensive plan for 20 year permits for this and all other <br />pits between Bakers Bridge and Trimble Lane must occur before more <br />permits are issued. (Mayo) <br />b. Applicant also operates Bar D Pit, where mining operation has drastically <br />reduced vegetation and wildlife habitat due to scouring of the river bed, as <br />shown in aerial photos from 1960-2000. Bar D Pit is poorly conceived and <br />monitored river gravel operation, adverse impact to environment. <br />(Wheeling) <br />c. Mining activity in the Animas River Valley of Durango should be curtailed or <br />eliminated in its entirety. (McMannis) <br />5. Comments Related to Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Requirements <br />a. Landowners surprised to learn that old permit, not renewed in 1996-1997, <br />could be reactivated. Mining operation not active for past.3 years, should <br />not be reopened. (Torrence, Mayo) <br />b. Proposed activities will channelize Animas River channel, contrary to COE <br />requirements. (Wheeling) <br />c. DMG must deny AM-01 until COE determines that the company has made all <br />necessary changes to their existing proposal. (Wheeling) <br />d. COE must validate that applicant has taken action to protect adjoining <br />landowners, river habitat and aquatic environment for future generations. <br />(Wheeling) <br />e. Impact on wetlands not adequately addressed. (Rau) <br />f. Previous operator violated COE requirements on several counts. (Ritz) <br />4 <br />