Laserfiche WebLink
_ Cynthia Parker/Sage Hill Farm <br />Public Comment on CDMG 112 Permit Application M2001-046 <br />Page 4 <br />require that wet soil be accessible to their root system. Changing the historic water table <br />level of my farm would effectively disallow me to undertake this habitat improvement <br />program. <br />Conclusion: Adverse impacts to the projects I have undertaken through DOW, CSFS <br />and USDA grants would obligate me to repay the grants in full, at a potential cost to me <br />of approximately $32,000. In addition, the value of the destroyed farm improvements, <br />which increase significantly with each growing season, would be lost to me. <br />Prior to receiving any recommendation of approval from the Division of Minerals and <br />Geology, the Applicant should be required to demonstrate through hydrogeologic studies <br />the absence of impact to the wetland and wildlife habitat improvements listed above. <br />Furthermore, the Applicant should propose and agree to a monitoring regime for the life <br />of the mine, said regime to be a permit condition and a contractual commitment to me. <br />This monitoring regime would be designed to detect fluctuations in the water table before <br />damage is done to my wetland or other habitat azeas. <br />Both the hydrogeologic study and the monitoring regime should be subject to my review <br />and approval. To represent me in this issue, in addition to Hydrosphere, I have <br />contracted with David Cooper, Ph.D., of CSU, a well-known riparian expert. A letter <br />from Dr. Cooper is attached, and he will provide testimony to the Division of Minerals at <br />the appropriate time. <br />RECLAMATION ISSUES. <br />A. Discrepancy in Number of Acres Being Permitted. The CDMG 112 Permit <br />application is asking to permit 312 acres for reclamation (see page one, point 3). <br />However, the Applicant only gives details of the mining operation and reclamation plan <br />for 112 acres. Also, in the Weld County Use by Special Review (Mining Operation) <br />Application USR-1343, the Applicant is only asking to permit 112 acres for mining. In <br />other words, no details of any kind are available for 200 acres of the area being permitted <br />for reclamation. This discrepancy brings into question the validity of the water <br />augmentation figures, the reclamation plan, etc. It also suggests that the applicant is <br />trying to obtain permits from the state and county and commence mining without having <br />disclosed all of its plans and their impacts to the state. <br />B. Discrepancy in Stated End Use. On page two of the CDMG Regular (112) <br />Operation Reclamation Permit application, it states: "The frnal reclamation for the <br />permit site will be land used primarily as open bodies of water. Agricultural acrd <br />rangeland uses may also be incorporated in reclamation efforts. " Again on page six of <br />the CDMG 112 application is states: "The post-mining land use of the property is <br />envisioned to be unlined open bodies of water... All other areas will be reclaimed as <br />natural pastureland for grazing livestock. " Also, on page one of the Weld County Use <br />by Special Review (Mining Operation) Application USR-1343, it states: "The end use of <br />Planning Area One after reclamation will primarily be for open water bodies. <br />