|
Rationale for Recommendation to Approve 43
<br /> September 29, 2016
<br /> 56. Concern that once quarrying is over, the site will quickly be revegetated with invasive foreign
<br /> colonizers such as wooly mullein and sweet clover
<br /> (J.Enderson)
<br /> The Applicant submitted a weed management plan prepared by CORE Consultants, Inc. in revised Exhibit
<br /> E, with the adequacy review response submitted on July 14, 2016. This plan provides methods to prevent
<br /> and control the spread of noxious weeds at pre-construction, construction, and reclamation phases of the
<br /> operation.
<br /> Additionally, CPW provided a comment on the application, dated April 18, 2016, which includes some
<br /> general recommendations for protection of existing natural vegetation, control of noxious weeds, and
<br /> revegetation of disturbed land. The Applicant has incorporated these recommendations into the permit
<br /> application.
<br /> The Division determined the permit application satisfied the requirements of Rule 6.4.5 and Rule
<br /> 3.1.10(6).
<br /> 57. Concerns that the proposed mining plan does not appear to provide an adequate buffer to protect
<br /> the use of intermittent stream corridors by sensitive species (riparian areas should have setback from
<br /> mining activities to minimize any impacts to these important wildlife corridors)
<br /> (J. Enderson,S.Fnrks, W.Baker,M.Baker, W.Sheaves,A.Sheaves,A.Sickels, L.Pecoraro, R.Eddy, W.Flaharty,D.Martin,L. Martin, T.
<br /> Offutt,J.Rigdon,K Rigdon,S.Diggs, W.Diggs.L.Steer,B.Donahue,E.Jessup,D.Harrell,H.Sandler,L.Louzon,B.Louzon,G. Cousineau,
<br /> C Cousineau, P.Ragan, C Ragan,B.Powell. T.Hight, C Watkins,P. Watkins,J McFarlane,R.EddvJr.,M.Heer, C Heer.M. Yugovich,
<br /> A.Fellows, T.Fellows,Raven Rudduck,E.Bransby,S.Boehr)
<br /> CPW provided a comment on the application, dated April 18, 2016, which includes a recommendation
<br /> that all wetland areas be buffered a minimum of 100 feet from Little Turkey Creek. CPW also recommends
<br /> that any development, surface disturbance, and outbuildings be discouraged except where necessary for
<br /> mining operations. Additionally, hydrological flows that support wetlands should remain undisturbed and
<br /> not impeded. CPW does not identify any particular existing vegetative or wildlife species that require
<br /> special protection.
<br /> The Applicant has incorporated all of CPW's recommendations into the permit application. Particularly,
<br /> the operation commits to maintaining a 100 foot buffer from existing creeks, except at three crossing areas
<br /> that will be reclaimed to riparian use after mining is completed.
<br /> The Division determined the permit application satisfied the requirements of Rule 6.4.4, Rule 6.4.5,Rule
<br /> 6.4.6, Rule 6.4.8, and Rule 3.1.8 with regard to wildlife and wildlife habitat.
<br /> 58. Concerns that there are no discussions in the application of how requirements of the access
<br /> permit from CDOT will be met
<br /> (A.Fellows, T.Fellows)
<br /> Pursuant to Rule 6.4.13, the Applicant affirmatively stated that a Hwy 115 access permit will be obtained
<br /> from CDOT. The Act and Rules do not require the Applicant to describe details of how particular permits
<br /> will be obtained. Rule 6.4.13 only requires the Applicant to provide a statement identifying which permits,
<br /> Op COl0
<br /> 1313 Srer,-,an S,�eet, Rusin 215, D,: :t , CIO 80293 P 303.866.3567 F 303.832 8106 IVp: n inri;.s:�te.cc.t_• ( /�� a \90
<br /> Io
<br /> )aI n'4'/, Nicve i,up•�r. Gcvtvnc,, I Ro7Pf� V�, Rantiill, Executive Di,ecto; I Vi•�ii5 a Brarria:, Director ',`*t, i */
<br />
|