|
f`
<br />;~.,'
<br />March 3, 2008
<br />Mr. Joseph Dudash
<br />Environmental Protection Specialist R~(,E,Y~•~+
<br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety
<br />Department of Natural Resources MAR ti`
<br />0 ~
<br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 .
<br />' °t ~
<br />Denver, CO 80203 Div
<br />Mi~~~ ~
<br />Dear Mr. Dudash:
<br />This letter is in response to your letter dated Februazy 13, 2008 referring to Bowie No.2 Mine (Permit
<br />No. C-1996-083) and Permit Revision Application No. (PR 11). From the perspective of Tenor Ditchh
<br />and Reservoir Company, the risks due to subsidence effects under Permit Revision Application No.
<br />(PR-11) are identical to those under Permit Revision Application No. (PR 10), which are in turn
<br />identical to those raised during the initial Environmental Impact Statement for the Iron-Point and Ells
<br />Creek Lease Tracts in 1999. The geology remains unchanged, the mining technology remain's
<br />unchanged, the hydrology remains unchanged, and the recipients of the economic benefits due to
<br />mining remain unchainged. Therefore, consistent with its previous communications, Tenor Ditch and
<br />Reservoir Company remains strongly opposed to any subsurface mining within one mile of our dam,
<br />reservoir, and associated spillways and structures. The text of our May 2, 2006 response to PR-10, with
<br />appropriate updates is presented following:
<br />As was cleazly delineated in our November 1, 1999 response to the .original Environmental Impact
<br />Statement and in oui• May 6, 2006 Response to PR-10, the proposed mining activities cazry significant
<br />risk of damage to, and failure of, our dam, reservoir, and associated spillways and structures. Such
<br />damage, or failure wall almost certainly result in property damage by direct loss due to loss of irrigation
<br />water, by direct loss due to damage to impoundment or conveyance structures, or by direct loss due to
<br />flooding. Further, the State of Colorado dam classification system indicates that loss of life is also
<br />possible.
<br />In the intervening time between the original EIS, PR-10, and the current proposal, several geo'
<br />technical devices have been installed in the area of concern surrounding the Terror Creek Reservoir
<br />While Terror Ditch and Reservoir Company greatly appreciates the information that these devices
<br />generate and the perseverance with which Bowie Resource Limited maintains and operates them, they
<br />have, as yet, in no way reduced the risks, nor have they improved the knowledge base upon which'
<br />sound decisions can be made. Attempts to argue that these devices allow "early warning" of
<br />disturbances due to mining operations rest on the assumption that the energy from these disturbances is
<br />smoothly transmitted through, and attenuated by, the surrounding geology. Further, such arguments
<br />assume that no catastrophic seismic event, resulting in much greater disturbance than anticipated, is
<br />triggered. There is no on-site, pertinent data to support such an argument. ~
<br />As with all ditch companies, Terror Ditch and Reservoir Company, by the very nature of the collection,
<br />impoundment and distribution of irrigation water, faces risks of structure damage, loss of water,
<br />insufficient water, etc., due to natural and unavoidable causes. Ditch Companies throughout Colorado
<br />manage their affairs so as to eliminate, minimize and mitigate the consequences of these naturally-!4
<br />',
<br />
|