PERMFILE47151 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 779.22 (a) Continued. • hrve been leasing their lands to hunters in increasing numbers. The trend is likely to continue on lands adjacent to the permit area, but the possibility for recreation on the permit area as long as mining activities are ongoing is highly unlikely due to the problems involved with hunter safety and vandalism. Opportunities for increased fish and wildlife within the permit area appear favorable. While it is doubtful the fisheries potential of the area can be improved due to lew stream flows during the suimner, increased wildlife habitat management is feasible as indicated in the discussion. under Section 780.16. Land owners adjacent to the permit area have increasingly attempted to enhance big game numbers through winter feeding programs. Employees of the mine have also been feeding hay to deer and elk during the past several years. While such efforts are presently • observed, they are spocatic among land owners. Some of the land owners adjacent to the permit area are opposed to such programs and have placed increasingly greater pressures on the Colorado Division of Wildlife to terminate wildlife feeding to prevent damage to their agricultural lands by wildlife. The checkerboard pattern of land ownership on lands adjacent to the proposed permit area tends to diminish positive measures employed on the proposed permit area to improve wildlife habitat. Additional development of the area is also unlikely. Examination of Table 82, Soil and Foundation Suitability Potentials and Limi- tations for Alternative Land Uses, reveals that the lands within the proposed permit area arc too steep and lack a dependable supply of water for either storage or irrigation. The most viable changes in land use on the area prior to mining from an economic standpoint (See Table 81, Land Use Capabilities • and Cropland Potentials Within the Proposed Energy Fuels Corporation 779-311