PERMFILE113902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • Page 2 of 5 at the end of the oxbow. The oxbow is not presently protected or exempted from the basic fluctuations of the Poudre River. It would take less than a fve-foot difference in the elevation of Camas' "ground level" banks to completely destroy my home and less than two feet to cripple my land use. Camas representatives, however, have shown absolutely no concern for the possible displacement of the 100-year floodplain covering approximately 75% of their property. At the December 2ntl meeting, TuttleApplegate representative Shani Eastin offered to seek an earlier, rather than later, procurement of their flood hazard development permit. Although hopeful, that was actually the third different response my wife and I have received from Camas concerning their floodplain permit. We are not alone in our concern; Section 34-32.5-116(h), CRS requires that the disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected and surrounding area in both quality and quantity be minimized. If Camas has no hydrologic impact research to back up their casual attitude toward this issue, how can they assure the permitting agencies or their neighbors that they will indeed minimize their inevitable disturbance to the floodplain? Section 6.3.3(1), CRS requires Camas to describe the measures they will take to minimize disturbances to the areas' hydrologic balance. Camas representatives verbally promise to "remedy" any damages their operation causes to their neighbors. They assured my neighbors and me that they themselves would come to our homes and, in the event we have water damage complaints, determine if their activities are at fault; then if they deem they are at fault, to correct any problems. Remedies, even compensations do not replace my home, the history it holds or the learning and lifestyle my homestead now provides for my family. I have no authority to hold Camas accountable for obtaining a Flood Hazard Development Permit or for actually taking specified measures to minimize disturbance to the floodplain (before serious damage is caused). I am relying upon governmental oversight to hold Camas accountable. Camas could create (after proper and accurate research has been obtained) positive and useful remedies such as reinforcements to prevent increased floodwaters in our neighborhood with dykes, bank supports, etc. These, of course, would need to be required in the permit conditions to assure such promises are upheld. 2. I object to the presence of overburden stockpiles, including reclamation topsoils in the floodplain. Camas has not been able or willing to provide any specific documentation of where they intend to keep the stockpiles. However, Gary Tuttle publicly explained that overburden and reclamation topsoil stockpiles are to be immediately piled and permanently kept on the edges of their mining cells. Cells 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have all, or part of their edges, residing on the 100-year floodplain. This is a serious problem for Cells 1 and 3, due to the inevitable displacement of the floodplain around the old oxbow. This seems to be a serious concern in the regulations. Section 34-32.5-116(g), CRS states the reclamation topsoils must be kept separate from the general overburden, in premium condition and free from any contamination. Section 6.3, CRS forbids stockpiles in streams or drainageways. Surely this area's historic floodway fits that description. Apparently Camas disagrees that these regulations apply to their operation. 3. I object to Camas' plans that ignore associated drainage waters and endanger private property and land uses around them. Our area of the Poudre Valley has an abundance of seepage and groundwater as well as a historically productive system of water conveyance structures. Storm run-off adds to these systems and is controlled by the same structures. The Regulations address such areas as ours very specifically. According to Section 6.3.3(8), CRS of the Act, Camas is required to "describe any associated drainage and conveyance structures ...including their sizes." Point (h) requires Camas to specify how much of this water they will use and the source of such water. Point (i) addresses the need to describe how their operations will "affect the quality and quantity of surface or groundwater and the methods to be used to minimize disturbance." Point (i) specifically regulates Camas' ability to ensure their reclamation plan protects the hydrologic balance of the area in regard to their proposed land use (i.e., lined water storage water ponds). Point Q) requires Camas to specify their compliance with existing water rights. Due diligence dictates Camas to acquire all kinds of specific information and impact data concerning these waters. Camas, however, does not make any provision in their plans to incorporate the tiled groundwater draining agricultural fields north of our home. One drainage file services our entire neighborhood clear down to my homestead. It discharges itself perpetually downstream from my home out of an 8-inch pipe and it is especially active during any significant storm run-off. Camas' plans to replace their field and section of that drain with lined Lake #2 will force the groundwater residing there to travel around their lake and through the agricultural plots and residences around them. My residence sits not only closest to the river but also closest to the groundwater as well. I cannot but assume the water table around my home, particularly, will rise and submit my foundation and septic field to water damage particularly during storm run-off. My house was build in 1929 and remains a secure testament to the ingenuity of the