PERMFILE119947 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The inaccuracies and lack of detail are highlighted by the proposed reconstruction of the intermittent stream that runs toward the northeast. Review of the reclamation map shows that the stream has the same direction and rate of slope as the entire 153 acre parcel under consideration, even though it runs from the center of the parcel to the northeast, and then turns to run almost directly east. This leaves unanswered the question of where waters in the eight mining traits that slope to the east-southeast will run. Applicant's simultaneous claims that there will be no interaction with groundwater and that no stormwater will run off-site until Unit IX defies logic and is indicative of the level of accuracy and detail in the overall application. The stream reconstruction plan provided admits that "re-vegetation of the stream bottom. .. is impractical, and shall not be required nor attempted in the reclamation phase of the operations." Id., ¶5. Instead, the applicant merely plans to "rip-rap" the lower end of the stream channel where there is a steeper stream gradient. Review of the application and revisions leave the reviewer to guess the slope of this steeper gradient. Serious analysis of the proposal is not possible due to the paucity of information provided by the applicant. In any event, applicant provides no assurance that this reconstructed stream on a reclaimed hillside with a supposedly even gradient will maintain its course over time or in any way avoid erosion and siltation during or after reclamation of the proposed operations. Another intervening factor is especially troubling: DMG's recent withdrawal of its finding that a reason to believe a violation exists. A January 30, 1998, Bureau of Land Management site visit revealed eighteen test pits on the 158 acre parcel. Each test pit disturbed an area that varied from 200 to 750 square feet, resulting in unauthorized disturbances of between 3,600 sq. ft. and 13,500 sq. ft., well over the 1600 sq. ft. exception in the Rules, even assuming argi~endo that the Rule is still valid. The BLM report discredits and contradicts the DMG inspection report that located only five test pits, but is quite consistent with the reports made by my clients. The stafY's withdrawal of the finding is aggravated by the fact that the violations impacted sites of historical and archeological significance, although not enough to destroy their significance. Further, these sites have yet to be adequately reclaimed. The serious issues raised by my clients provide ample reason why this application can not be legally approved. These issues also provide ample legal grounds to deny this application. The Colorado mining laws seeks to promote an economically sound and stable industry that fully