1997-06-05_REVISION - M1981302 (12)

Home Browse Search

999 NSA • Natural Science Associates, Inc. 4814 W. Moorhead Cir • Boulder, CO 80303 • (303) 499-5014 June4, 1997 RECEIVED The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board JUN 0 51997 c/o Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman St., Rm 215 Denver, CO 80203 Division or minerals&Geology Dear Mined Land Reclamation Board: I request to be a party to the June 25 or 25, 1997 Board Hearing concerning the Deepe Farm Amendment No. 2, File M-81-302. I ask the Board to consider the following ISSUES: THE AMENDMENT IS TECHNICALLY FLAWED TO MEET ITS END USE 1) The Amendment is not technically a good plan for restoring wildlife habitat and agriculture, which are the required end uses according to the permit application. For example, the dewatering ditch shown in the Amendment reclamation plan map was not in the 1989 map. Dewatering is directly contradictory to establishing wildlife habitat, which benefits from moist habitats, of which there was much prior to mining (see vegetation description in original, 1981 permit application.) Dewatering also contradicts reestablishing a permanent vegetative cover similar to what was present prior to mining(Construction Materials Rule (CMR) 3.1.10). 2) The mine operator is in fact attempting to ignore its commitment to restore wildlife habitat or agriculture, which are the required end uses. In its 1989 MLR "Request for an Amendment to ...Permit M-81-302", Western Mobile stated "Ultimately the property will be developed for uses other than agricultural". The current landowner intends to "maximize development" potential and "development flexibility" (from 4/25/97 letter of agreement between CU and its consultants, Love & Associates.) I believe that the Board should uphold the commitments made by mining companies through the state permitting process. If not upheld, I believe that public trust of mining companies, acceptance of mining activities, and the Board's credibility for enforcing its own requirements will suffer. THEREFORE I request that the amendment be modified to exclude the dewatering ditch and to include active planning for wildlife habitat. THE FLOODPLAIN IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAND CONTOURS ARE UNKNOWN 3) The flood-control berm shown on the Amendment reclamation plan map is a new feature, absent from the 1989 map. It is "affected land" (CMR 1.1 103(1)), particularly due to recent berm construction by Western Mobile as part of its mining activities. 4) The contours of the Amendment map and the TR-06 map are essentially the same with the exception of a slightly higher elevation (24) in one part of the berm in TR-06. Thus the comments made by Mr. Allen Sorensen on 5/25 and 5/26/97 concerning the inadequacy of the floodplain and berm information for TR-06 apply equally to the Amendment. Mr. Sorenson states that "Western Mobile must provide a floodplain analysis that compares flood inundation that would occur it the reclamation contours approved in 1989 were installed, to flood inundation that