2011-06-02_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089 (22)

Home Browse Search

As are discussed in the narrative in Section 2.05.5, relative to the different landowners, Mr. Glasier has leased his land but not his water to WFC relative to this proposed mining and reclamation operation. Therefore, it is impossible for WFC to commit to reclaim these lands to irrigated pasture because there will be insufficient water available for this purpose on this parcel of land. Simply, without the water, there is no reasonable way that these lands can support the historic and pre - mining land uses. On the Meehan property the current landowner has also requested that his irrigated pasture be reclaimed to dryland pasture. As are documented in permit section 2.04.3, on this parcel as well as on the Glasier parcel, there have been pronounced declines in the amount of irrigated pasture as the land has been sold and either through the sale of the water rights or the absence of a landowner who lives on this land, there have been significant declines in the amount of irrigated pasture present on these two parcels of land. On the Garvey property, due to the abundant water rights they possess and the fact that they live on the land, there will be no conversion of irrigated pasture to dryland pasture. WFC submits that since the current Montrose County land use classification of all of these lands as "General Agricultural District A" does not distinguish between irrigated and dryland pasture land uses, the conversion of irrigated pasture to dryland pasture will be consistent with adjacent land use patterns and trends as well as the policies of Montrose County. Conversion of the irrigated pasture areas to dryland pasture will not present an actual or probable hazard to public health or safety, nor will it result in an actual or probable threat of water flow diminution or pollution contrary to any state of federal laws, policies or regulations. Such a conversion will not alter or result in any unreasonable delays in reclamation. It will not have adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, related environmental values, or any of the habitats associated with threatened or endangered plants or animals. As required by the Regulations at Rule 4.16.3(6) with respect to alternative land uses, the reclamation of the current irrigated pasture land uses to similar land uses "would require continuous maintenance" and "sufficient water" both of which the existing landowners on the Glasier and Meehan properties are unwilling to provide. Since they are unwilling or unable to provide these inputs, it is impossible for WFC to reclaim these disturbed lands to their current land uses. WFC believes that the proposed reclamation of these current irrigated pasture land use areas to dryland pasture is consistent with the regulations at 4.16.1, which require that the lands disturbed by mining be reclaimed "to conditions that are capable or supporting the uses which they are capable of supporting before a n y mining" and "to higher or better uses ..." Given the absence of water it is impossible to reclaim these lands to their predisturbance capability. Also it is important to point out that reclamation of these lands to dryland pasture is not dryland pasture as are described by the Dryland Pasture vegetation and land use type which is currently producing an average of only 348.6 pounds of air -dry forage per acre, but instead will be similar to that associated with the Dryland Pasture Reclamation found on the Rice Tract on the old NH1 Mine, where the vegetation baseline studies described in permit section 2.04.10, document that an average of 845.0 pounds of air -dry forage is currently being produced. WFC acknowledges that this forage production level is less than the current average of 3,285.3 pounds of air -dry forage per acre being produced on the Irrigated Pasture vegetation type and land use type, but this is simply not a realistic goal since the water on all of these areas is simply not available. For the Section 2.05.5 Page 6 April 2011