My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE119947
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE119947
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:18:52 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 7:58:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1997089
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
2/17/1998
Doc Name
STONE GRAVEL PIT SECTION 112 APPLICATION M97-089 PUBLIC COMMENT PROVIDED FOR RECONSIDERATION
From
TRAVIS E STILLS
To
DMG
Section_Exhibit Name
SECTION 112
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />The inaccuracies and lack of detail are highlighted by the proposed reconstruction of the <br />intermittent stream that runs toward the northeast. Review of the reclamation map shows that the <br />stream has the same direction and rate of slope as the entire 153 acre parcel under consideration, <br />even though it runs from the center of the parcel to the northeast, and then turns to run almost <br />directly east. This leaves unanswered the question of where waters in the eight mining traits that <br />slope to the east-southeast will run. Applicant's simultaneous claims that there will be no <br />interaction with groundwater and that no stormwater will run off-site until Unit IX defies logic <br />and is indicative of the level of accuracy and detail in the overall application. <br />The stream reconstruction plan provided admits that "re-vegetation of the stream bottom. <br />.. is impractical, and shall not be required nor attempted in the reclamation phase of the <br />operations." Id., ¶5. Instead, the applicant merely plans to "rip-rap" the lower end of the stream <br />channel where there is a steeper stream gradient. Review of the application and revisions leave <br />the reviewer to guess the slope of this steeper gradient. Serious analysis of the proposal is not <br />possible due to the paucity of information provided by the applicant. In any event, applicant <br />provides no assurance that this reconstructed stream on a reclaimed hillside with a supposedly <br />even gradient will maintain its course over time or in any way avoid erosion and siltation during <br />or after reclamation of the proposed operations. <br />Another intervening factor is especially troubling: DMG's recent withdrawal of its <br />finding that a reason to believe a violation exists. A January 30, 1998, Bureau of Land <br />Management site visit revealed eighteen test pits on the 158 acre parcel. Each test pit disturbed <br />an area that varied from 200 to 750 square feet, resulting in unauthorized disturbances of <br />between 3,600 sq. ft. and 13,500 sq. ft., well over the 1600 sq. ft. exception in the Rules, even <br />assuming argi~endo that the Rule is still valid. The BLM report discredits and contradicts the <br />DMG inspection report that located only five test pits, but is quite consistent with the reports <br />made by my clients. The stafY's withdrawal of the finding is aggravated by the fact that the <br />violations impacted sites of historical and archeological significance, although not enough to <br />destroy their significance. Further, these sites have yet to be adequately reclaimed. <br />The serious issues raised by my clients provide ample reason why this application can not <br />be legally approved. These issues also provide ample legal grounds to deny this application. <br />The Colorado mining laws seeks to promote an economically sound and stable industry that fully <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.