Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 of 3 <br />Army Corps of Engineers <br />April 16, 1996 <br />substantial streambed restoration followed by cessation or considerable modification to the <br />Thomas Pit mining operation. Animas Aggregates (the predecessor to Mountain Re~ji Mix) has <br />been very difficult to deal with on this matter (I have tried), and they admitted to me that <br />following a fall flood (in 1984 or 1935, I believe), they moved their equipment into the river and <br />reworked the slope and channels on the East Side of the river--outside of their minin; permit area. <br />In reviewing the exhibits sent to me from the Corps of Engineers, it is apparent that the map and <br />streambed elevations tell my story by the fact of what is missing: no mention of the dried up east <br />channel and no elevation work thereon. But, if the Corps would look into the extensive file on <br />this operation which is available through the Colorado Division oflvtined Reclamation in Denver, <br />I believe they would find the "smoking gun". <br />First, there are a number of maps, but one in particular, drawn by one C. R. Nofsinger dated <br />June 22, 1976 and submitted to Mined Reclamation, clearly shows the condition of the river <br />with an easterly channel not shown on your map. This map was amended numerous times, but <br />continued to show the easterly channel of the river. (See Attached Map, Exhibit 5) <br />Second, the reports of various inspectors for Mined Reclamation, when taken together, show <br />clearly what has happened (and not by natural forces) over the years. There is an Inspection <br />Report signed by one Robert C. Campbell, dated Apri127, 1976 (Exhibit 2), in which the <br />inspector states: "There are 3 channels in the river here. The westernmost chaninel is man <br />made and flows water in to their operation for processing." Then theneis another document <br />entitled Minerals Program Inspection Report by John T. Doerfer, Inspector, and dated August 19, <br />1988 (Exhibit 3). In the narrative portion that inspector writes: "Most of the streamflow 2/3 <br />now runs through the excavated channeh with 113 remainin8 to flow throu>;h the channel <br />unatTected by minine." There is no mention of what was once another channel ofth.e river! <br />Third, I would further call your attention to the fact that this operation has never been monitored <br />as to tonnage or volume, and this vas one of the concerns raised by "MAK" in a Division of <br />Mined Reclamation document titled "Reclamation Feasibility", dated March 9, 1977 (l~xhibit 4). <br />In this document, under the heading "Mining Plan", the evaluation stated: "Totally inadequate! <br />First of all, we should know the dimensions of the `hole' they'll be mining, approximate tonnage, <br />direction of mining. (if any) and some type of timetable." <br />In sum, this mining operation, ostensibly using a replenishing resource but unmonitored or <br />undermonitored, has intensively mined their "hole" and has diverted what was once aloes-flow <br />man-made channel to the point that~it is now the primary channel of the river. If there: were a <br />thorough cross section mapping of the river, using Nofsinger's maps or current surveyed maps, a <br />high and dry channel to the east of what is shown as `East Bank" would be apparent. The most <br />marked result would be seen in the drop in elevation from "Section 27 + 54 (your page 8 <br />-more- <br />