PERMFILE117978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cottonwoods and ripazian vegetation alive using this technique. At the very least, we want this approach tested in a modeling scenario before Camilletti Pit #2 is approved. The adjacent wetlands will die. This conclusion is stated by Gerdson, "Ofgreoter concern are the adjacent wetlands to the proposed gravel mining operation ... It is obvious that the water table will be lowered extensively below the existing wetlands bordering the proposed mining operation. The dewatering of the wetlands will inhibit further growth of the wetland species, and cause them to perish, due to the lack of saturated soils. " According to Dr. Cooper, "Water table drawdown more than 0.5 to 0.75 m during the summer will result in wetland plant death and the loss of the wetlands. " This does not mitigate the potential negative effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat as zoning laws require. Gerdson also says "Planting cuttings or seedlings in open areas 6-10 feet apart may reduce the concern of lateral accretion of the Yampa River towards the gravel pit by stabilizing the stream banks. Although this requires several growing seasons for the seedlings to establish extensive root systems, this will enhance the health of the ecosystem and provide for long-term development of the cottonwood canopy and create riparian habitat. A 100 foot buffer from all riparian species is necessary to properly mitigate the cottonwoods and wetland vegetation to establish and sustain along-term healthy riparian corridor. " Dr. Cooper says, "All of this information is incorrect. Cottonwoods cannot stop lateral stream movement. You cannot establish seedlings or cuttings well above the water table, etc." Gerdson reports that "A 100' buffer from the cottonwood drip line would ensure the health of the cottonwoods given the above mitigation techniques (outlined in his report)"but Dr. Cooper says there is no analysis in his report that leads to this conclusion. It appears that Gerdson has taken Mr. Camilletti s desire for a compromise between the 50 feet (from the tree dripline) that he wants and the 250 foot buffer that Planning Department recommended. Perhaps that is the conversation that was held when we saw Mc Camilletti and Mr. Gerdson together on the property when the study was being conducted. Dr. Cooper says that "His (Gerdson's) drawdown figures indicate that drawdowns of more than 1 m, su~cient to injure or kill cottonwoods, will occur along his transect A at 60-6~ m from the pit, and along transect B at 90-95 m. from the p;r, These are 7.3+ times morn than 100 feor, Ifthe modoting is redone to address the likelihood that the seep face in the pit will be at the pit bottom, not at 4-7 m above the bottom, then drawdowns could extend much further." We want the modeling redone from the pit bottom by an expert in this field. If this is not done, you do not know that a 100' buffer provides enough space for adequate mitigation. This gravel mining operation should not be approved unless you are sure mitigation techniques will work to the satisfaction of the County's Zoning Resolution. Gerdson's statement that, "Many site- specific questions still remain to determine the actual impacts associated with the gravel mining operation, which will 6e answered if mining is allowed" is totally unacceptable. We agree with Dr. Cooper when he says that permitting the gravel pit as an experiment to see what actually happens is not realistic. We may not have the influence of those who live in Steamboat, but we are not guinea pigs. We are County residents and deserve to at least have the appearance of adequate representation by our County officials. Again, any decision solely based on the validity of [he Gerson report as it relates to visual and noise and wildlife habitat mitigation must be considered arbitrary and capricious.