Laserfiche WebLink
the"management and creation of habitat." That stated, the affidavits of Dr. Warren R. Keammerer <br /> of Keammerer Ecological Consultants, Inc. and Dr. Robert E. Stoecker of Stoecker Ecological <br /> Consultants, Inc. conclude that: (1) the amended reclamation plan will not adversely affect the <br /> habitat the Ute ladies tresses orchid and Preble's jumping mouse may find inviting on adjacent Open <br /> Space lands; and(2) in the case of the Preble'sjumping mouse, the implementation of the amended <br /> plan may in fact "enhance" the habitat of the mouse on properties adjacent to the pit. Western <br /> Mobile contends that the amended reclamation plan is consistent with the stated goals of the <br /> Construction Materials statute and regulations as they pertain to the management and creation of <br /> wildlife habitat. The record before the Board contains no evidence to the contrary. <br /> Issue No. 5. Whether the topsoil replacement as proposed in the Amendment is sufficient to <br /> support the plant species to be established in the reclamation? <br /> By letter dated June 4, 1997 to Hart Environmental, Western Mobile's primary <br /> reclamation consultant, the Division proposed to condition its recommended approval of the <br /> amendment request as it relates to the depth and quality of topsoil on the site. Western Mobile is <br /> currently working with the Division and Dr. Keammerer to finalize this condition of the <br /> recommended approval. Under the proposed condition, Western Mobile would develop a soil testing <br /> plan that would assess the nutritive value of the topsoil material stockpiled on site. Western Mobile <br /> would collect samples of the stockpiled soil for analysis according to standard agronomic procedures <br /> as necessary to provide information to the Division regarding the nutrient status of the topsoil to be <br /> spread over the affected land. This data would be submitted within a specified time subsequent to <br /> the Board's approval of the amendment. These efforts were announced at the June 5, 1997 pre- <br /> hearing conference, where the company also volunteered to implement a plan to control noxious <br /> weeds on reclaimed lands within the permit boundary and to re-evaluate the non-native species in <br /> the approved revegetation seed mix for possible replacement of such species with native species as <br /> may be deemed appropriate by the Division. <br /> III. CONCLUSION <br /> Contrary to the claims and procedural posturing of the parties opposed to the amendment, <br /> the issues confronting the Board in this case are straight forward. Western Mobile urges the Board <br /> to limit is review to the amendment application. Issues relative to the April 30, 1997 TR relate to <br /> the berm and only operate to unnecessarily complicate Issue Nos. 3-5 as outlined in the Order for <br /> the Board's consideration. Should the Division determine at a later date that the April 30, 1997 TR <br /> should be styled as an amendment, Western Mobile will evaluate that decision in consultation with <br /> the landowner. In the interim, the company wishes to take full advantage of the current construction <br /> season as it pertains to reclamation that does not involve the berm. The Board should allow Western <br /> Mobile to proceed in such a manner once it is satisfied that the items identified in Issue Nos. 3-5 of <br /> the Order have been addressed. <br /> 11 <br />