PERMFILE113902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • Page 4 of 5 ground or storm run-off water from such large acreages on both sides of us sent to the drainage ponds has the potential to raise the water table on my private property. Camas has given my wife and me no hope for an impact study or control plans on their alteration of groundwaters or storm run-off. Yet they are responsible for both per state law (Section 6.4.7, CRS) and their county USR permit application questionnaire (page 8, number 8 and page 14). c. Camas has two conditions on their current county permit that restrict their mining to a 500-foot set-back from my home and the Sellmers' home. However, Camas' amended plan erases this setback. In Sellmer's case they are reduced to a 25-foot set back from their property line, far less than 500 feet from their home. I object to Camas' attempt to unseat this county condition at the state level. The Sellmers are hoping to sell their home in the near future. Such a set back (including the stipulated berms at that setback) would go a long way toward healing the financial depreciation of their property. In actuality, real estate professionals have indicated all properties in this neighborhood have dropped in value 7 to 10°/u simply because of Camas' mining and reclamation plans. When active mining begins in this area, the depreciation is expected to increase. d. The residences to our east on Rocky Road are also reduced to a 25-foot setback from the property line. On December 2ntl Camas representatives publicly gave no legally justified reason for their setback, such as engineering impact research. They did, however, offer to draw pictures of whatever those homeowner's would like to "see" 25 feet past their fences and yards. Only pictures were offered; absolutely no written documentation altering their plans was considered or offered by Camas representatives concerning this set-back contradiction or their legal responsibility to keep promises made about that area's reclamation. The Regulations require a minimum 200-foot setback from structures unless Camas either obtains a signed agreement with the owner or conducts a structural engineering impact study (Reference Sections 115(4)(e) and 6.4.19-115(4)(e), CRS]. Again, Camas appears to ignore these Regulations and expects us to as well. 6. We object to this mining operation because it unnecessarily replaces prime wildlife habitat with water storage lakes unable to support most of the existing species and is inhospitable to most species otherwise attracted to lakes. We have already seen a significant depletion of mule deer, bald eagles, blue herons and great horned owls due to the major flooding event in April 1999 and the earth moving operations of the Poudre River Ranch subdivision. We had hoped that these species would repopulate over the next few years but that seems unlikely given Camas' plans. The presence of Lakes 1, 3 and 4 and the consequential absence of food and shelter for wildlife currently inhabiting the river bottoms spoils an important aspect of my family's and our community's heritage. There is a delicate balance between the preservation of our wildlife and the responsible development of our river lands. I am concerned that these lakes will not simply move the wildlife "over' but move much of it "out," especially the mule deer, owls, eagles, and small rodents (upon which the coyotes prey). Since coyotes are notorious experts at adjusting it seems obvious to me they will most likely gravitate more aggressively to the closest remaining food sources; my property with small livestock and small children. This last winter we were compelled to obtain a llama that has since successfully protected our livestock from preying coyotes. We already sense the necessity to withhold the freedom of our children in our wooded acres during the winter and the spring runoff. I am concerned that the healthy population of coyotes in our area will be magnified by these lakes to a serious nuisance level and that the rarer species of wildlife will disappear altogether. Attached is a letter from the Division of Wildlife expressing similar concerns. Especially note the verbiage describing Camas' land as mostly floodplain and a "most important" wildlife habitat. The author, Larry Rogstad, shows well how the wildlife cohabitate with our whole neighborhood in foraging the river bottoms and escaping insects, predators or flooding by migrating on and off our private properties and Camas' upper fields. He rightly cites that the difficulty in narrowing the river corridor and replacing that habitat area with mostly lakes is that much of the wildlife cannot simply adjust, it will be lost. Later in this letter Mr. Rogstad professionally supports our concern that, though well-intended, Camas' reclamation plan does not give any specific details for accommodating wildlife along the banks of the lakes or of a profitable wet meadow to help alleviate lost forage. In addition, Mr. Rogstad provides numerous alterations to the reseeding and replanting effort Camas has planned. Additional objections to Camas' reclamation plans can be summarized by the following: 1. the poor reclamation of critical revegetation thickets and the lack of weed control (especially noxious weeds common to our area). 2. the poor development of bank slopes that, as currently stipulated, will discourage wildlife further from our area rather than attract it.