Laserfiche WebLink
93 on a regular basis.This is a significant and legitimate community concern. <br /> Water impacts: Did the historical"seepage"from the underground mine workings suddenly and mysteriously <br /> disappear?Not likely. <br /> Mitigation efforts a few years ago on the ponds by the vacant homestead(Jeffco lands)and downstream <br /> pastures would suggest ongoing drainage flows?Has an updated assessment been made so as to fully <br /> understand potential impacts on groundwater?Does this effect Ramstetter creek or other?Contaminated water <br /> is a documented historical concern that is seemingly being brushed aside now?Also,some citizens continue to <br /> wonder about the effects the mining operation may have on private wells. <br /> Reclamation:The scars from historical mining activities on the hogback are unattractive.The thought that <br /> additional scarring of the hogback highwall may occur, is a major source of community concern.Commuters, <br /> recreation seekers,Golden citizens and nearby residents are clearly not in favor of continued destruction of the <br /> natural beauty of the area we live in. <br /> Wildlife impacts:Various wildlife species inhabit the hogback. I have seen all sorts of wildlife roaming the <br /> hogback. In fact,the SH 93 relocation design illustration recognizes the longstanding historical existence of <br /> wildlife on the Dakota hogback and includes a provision for a wildlife"underpass"at the south end of the <br /> Golden owned hogback property.While Denver Brick may choose to rely on a!977 wildlife study, I will rely on <br /> what I have seen residing for 14 years adjacent to the hogback. Individuals living in Castle Rock, <br /> Co, Denton,Tx.or Johnson City,TN.cannot speak to the subject of wildlife impacts with authority. <br /> Land use: I recognize this is not your area of jurisdiction, but I will mention it anyway. <br /> The acreage proposed for expanded mining is zoned A2. In my opinion it must be rezoned PD for mining and <br /> subject to the scrutiny of a full and thorough rezone review.There is apparent disagreement between citizens <br /> and Jeffco on the rezone question.This proposition was positioned initially as a rezone dating back to early <br /> 2020. Now, it is being positioned as a Location and Extent process by Jeffco Planning and Zoning. Until this <br /> question is resolved within Jefferson County Planning and Zoning, it seems a permit decision by DRMS should <br /> at the very least be tabled. <br /> I will take my other concerns up with Jeffco,if and when that opportunity should arise. <br /> Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I recognize the complexities of managing through decisions on <br /> cases like this. I believe a"best for all solution"is going to be difficult. Listening to community feedback will be <br /> necessary!!! <br /> T <br /> Permit Number* <br /> Enter valid letter and then numbers,for example M1977999, M1999777UG or C1981201. <br /> M19760O7 <br /> Permitting Action Type <br /> Select revision type or leave blank if comment pertains to a new permit application or NOI <br /> Permit Type <br /> County <br /> Jeferson <br /> Enter one county only <br />