GENERAL54214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 Nov 2, 2004 Pikeview Enhanced Plans Bruce Humphries Recall that the CMRF was specifically designated as the body to oversee and implement the enhanced plans developed by the Mining Reclamation Advisory Committee. This designation was provided in a joint meeting between the Colorado Springs City Council and the EI Paso County Commissioners. 'T'hus, in the 1994 Pikeview amendment, the enhanced plans were well distinguished from the permitted plan. But now that distinction seems to be vague at best, but only with regard to the "Previously Mined Areas" of die enhanced plans. Everyplace else the distinction remains as originally stated in the 1994 amendment. The question, therefore, is this. On the layback area ("Previously Mined Areas") what now constitutes enhanced reclamation and what constitutes pemutted reclamation? If the permitted plan has now replaced the enhanced reclamation plan far tbir pecific area, is there, in fact, any enhanced reclamation? Ox, are there portions of the enhanced plan, as envisioned for other areas, applicable to this area where the plan boundaries have become quite vague? In other words, certain actions proposed for new mining areas under the enhanced plan may have become applicable to the Previously Mined Areas because that area is now anew mining area. We don't doubt that whatever is implemented on the layback, enhanced or permitted, will be immensely better than what was proposed when the enhanced plans were originally drafted. And we would hope that at least most parties will be pleased with the final product. However, there is a concern that because the differentiation between enhanced and permitted reclamation on the layback area is unclear, disputes might arise in the future. Clearly, the original approach of including the enhanced reclamation plan in the permit as an unbonded overlay to die permitted plan is still in effect and still very much a part of the permit. But with respect to the layback area it appears the situation has changed. We believe this probably should be addressed in the permit in some fashion so that when all is said and done people Five or ten years from now will know how to think about the final reclamation product and be able to tell who did what. Perhaps only an update to the enhanced plan in the permit is needed, as the mechanism For inclusion of that plan is already in place. Or perhaps a memorandum of understanding between DMG, MLRB, and the CMRF is needed that defines the course of action on the layback azea at Pikeview. In short, some means to bring the boundary between the two plans on the layback area into better focus. Please think about these issues and if you desire, we can discuss it further in the neaz future. Sincerely, Mark A. H fner cc: Jerry Hermann, Castle Concrete Wanda Reaves, CMRF Scott Davis, CMRF