Laserfiche WebLink
Revised: 07/06/97 Minutes- June 26-27, 1997 Page 34 <br /> material and raise it. Mr. Humphries clarified that the Board or Division is not being asked to agree <br /> to the removal of the berm. If the berm is to be removed, then that would have to be by some other <br /> agency directing them to do that. <br /> Mr. Cattany recognized the concerns of the homeowners, but the Board is not approving the flood <br /> control project. There is someone else who is in charge of that. The Board is not managing the <br /> flood control project or certifying it. <br /> The Board then closed the Hearing and opened Board deliberation. The Board Moved that the <br /> matter addressed by the TR should not become part of the Amendment and denied the Hearings <br /> continuance. Seconded and Unanimously Approved. (Green, Kraeger-Rovey, Cooley, Cohan, <br /> Paulin, Ernst and Cattany). <br /> The Board reopened the testimony portion and moved into the next portion of the Hearing. <br /> Mr. Humphries restated issue #3.: Whether the Amendment conforms to the stated post-mining use <br /> of wildlife and agriculture; and issue #5.: Whether the proposed decrease in exposed water surface <br /> is appropriate to the stated post-mining use of wildlife and agriculture and to habitat management <br /> and creation. At any mine site, one of the first steps is to determine the post-mining land use. In <br /> this Amendment, the applicant has not proposed a change to the post-mining land use as stated in <br /> the originally approved application. The land use is wildlife habitat and agriculture. As the <br /> Division will demonstrate, the reclamation plan, if completed by the operator, will satisfy the <br /> provisions of C.R.S. 34-32.5-116(4)(o)and (p). <br /> In terms of wildlife, the Division referenced Rule 3.1.8(l) and (2). Provision (1) of this rule only <br /> requires the operator to protect wildlife (no mention of plant species) on the mine site. Provision <br /> (2) of the Rules requires the operator to contact DOW or like federal agencies to see if there are <br /> unique opportunities available to enhance habitat and/or benefit wildlife within the frame work of <br /> the reclamation plan and costs. These two Rules pertain to areas on the mine site. The Division <br /> will show that what the applicant has proposed will not alter or diminish the overall positive <br /> impacts to wildlife by way of the proposed Amendment. Mr. Humphries also asked the Board to <br /> note that the two rules that he had cited do not distinguish between classes of wildlife. It does not <br /> give preference to any class of wildlife. The Rule considers all wildlife to be of equal value. <br />