PERMFILE117978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

as well as the Nature Conservancy demanded an independent study by a qualified scientist preferably one with specific riparian vegetation experience and one who had published articles in peer reviewed publications on this topic. County officials requested an independent study but instead of choosing a qualified scientist, they selected Jord Gerdson, an inexperienced person two years out of college with no specific experience in this field. We were told an experienced oversee would be involved but as we found, she has no experience in this specific field. Her area of expertise is in water toxicology. In defense of their choice, they claimed cost was a factor but, in fact, the applicant was to pay for the study and additionally, the Nature Conservancy offered to pay for the difference in cost to have a correct study of the effects oo this sensitive azea. The County Planning Department forwarded the completed report to Dr. Cooper, to do an analysis of Gerdson's findings. He was appalled at the number of errors and unsubstantiated claims the author made throughout the report. We want the DMG Board to consider the testimony of one of the leading authorities on wetlands science including the impact of water drawdown on wetland vegetation such as cottonwoods and his comments of the cone of depression. Another example of untruth is the memo sent to Libbie Miller our local US Division of Wildlife representative who told me she had never seen the letter dated March 6, 2001 (referred to in Exhibit H) on the location of birds and wildlife that appeared to have her approval. The applicant claimed that Bald Eagles are S miles downstream when if fact they are 3/4 of a mile upstream. Libbie's a-mail correspondence is enclosed. We sincerely ask the DMG Board to take into consideration this pattern of untruths to determine whether harm will come to the rivers. We ask you to consider the effects on the riparian habitat and the potential for disaster to area wildlife and the damage to private wells. We also ask that you be aware that some of the reports before you are not necessarily the truth even through they have been endorsed by County officials. II. 100-Year Floodulain Delineation River Contamioatioo resulting from pit capture will "affect" all of the community. Water belongs to all of the people and because of this, we are all affected when rivers are damaged. The applicant may have water rights to a small portion of the Yampa River and Trout Creek but he does not have a right to damage the part that is not his. He is not entitled to introduce pollutants such as sediment, fuels, and other pollutants that may happen if a mining or other operation is allowed in this environmentally sensitive location. Not only will we be "affected" if this happens but everyone downstream and all who regularly use the rivers for recreation will be "affected" as well. The proposed operation with its incomplete or inaccurate floodplain studies, poses a threat to the public's waterway. As members the public, we are "aggrieved" when such operations are hastily permitted. I drift and fish and care for the Yampa River. If there is a 100-year flood that carries these pollutants into the waterway, then the resident's fishing and recreational use of this river are imrnediately affected. I take great enjoyment from fishing stretches of the lower Yampa River and do not want to see i[ destroyed. When the mine site including silt ponds, equipment and fuel containers are inundated during a 100-year flood, my neighbors and I will suffer the consequences. We will suffer from the destruction of the rivers, wildlife habitat of the area and loss of recreational pursuits we enjoy. To avoid pit capture, I request that the DMG Board consider the following: " Do not allow the sedimentation ponds to be within 400 feet of the rivers and do not allow mining in the floodways. ' Require the applicant to provide an accurate map of the floodway and 100-year floodplain for Trout Creek and for the Yampa River.