_REVISION - M1981302 (133) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 19 amount of wildlife habitat is reduced. The Construction Materials Rules and Regulations do not require the creation of an aquatic habitat as criteria for wildlife habitat. The inclusion of additional acreage of vegetated areas increases habitat for various terrestrial species. Also, no particular acreage was designated in the original permit approval for wildlife use versus agricultural use. The deletion of water surface will increase the area of productive agricultural land. It is the Division's belief that under either the current reclamation plan or the proposed amendment, there will be a diversity of both game and non-game species and that wildlife habitat will be recreated, protected and rehabilitated. Comment: "In addition, the proposal threatens to cause significant adverse impacts on plant and wildlife habitat outside the permit area on adjacent properties." Response: The operator does not propose to disturb any off-site properties. The Division has not received any documentation from any. f the objectors which would demonstrate to the Division how the proposal could cause these adverse wildlife habitat impacts. Comment: "...we are highly concerned that this change, which proposes a reduction of exposed water surface from 38.1 acres to 4.2 acres by eliminating previously proposed lakes, would be a major change from the originally promised reclamation plan. That plan was reviewed and approved by Boulder County as part of the 1981 Special Use Review #SU-81-10. During the special Use Review process, the proposed reclamation plan (including three lakes with approximately 41.5 acres of water surface) and how the plan related to the subsequent use of the site after mining, were a major issue." "The proposed Amendment would be a substantial and detrimental change from the reclamation plan promised the citizens of Boulder County." Response: The Boulder County Commissioners express a concern that the proposed reclamation plan may pave the way for future intensive development of the site in what may be determined to be an unsafe and flood-prone area. By increasing the acreage of land surface while reducing the acreage of water surface within the area to be reclaimed, the operator would be enhancing the property from a future development perspective. However, as stated above, an increase,in the acreage of land surface is not contrary to the post-mining land uses of wildlife habitat and general agriculture. In order to develop the land, the operator would either have to successfully achieve these post-mining land uses and obtain bond release and reclamation permit termination, at which time the land owner would be free of any regulation under the Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction materials as to how the land is managed, or the operator would have to obtain approval of a permit amendment changing the post-mining land use to industrial/commercial. The question as to whether