Laserfiche WebLink
Page 10 <br /> always preferable to a structural approach, in the cases where valuable improvements <br /> already exist in the floodplain (such as the neighborhoods north of the Deepe Farm Pit) <br /> and where significant modifications to the natural floodplain have already occurred <br /> (such as the construction of the Boulder Turnpike and the historic realignment of South <br /> Boulder Cree_k_), a natural.approach to floodplain management is often not feasible. <br /> �— <br /> ISSUE 3 Whether the Amendment conforms to the stated post-mining use of wildlife and <br /> agriculture. <br />��gmmanf• "Tt1P Am ndm pt resu A-reclamation p an that is not maintenance free in violation <br /> of Section 34-32.5-116(4)(f) and Construction Materials Rule 3.1.10." <br /> Response: There is no wording in either Section 34-32.5-116(4)(f) or Rule 3.1.10 that requires the <br /> final configuration of reclaimed areas to be "maintenance-free". Both sections do <br /> require that"In those areas where revegetation is part of the reclamation plan, land shall <br /> be revegetaed so that a diverse, effective, and long-lasting vegetative cover is <br /> established that is capable of self-regeneration and is at least equal, with respect to the <br /> extent of cover, to the natural vegetation of the surrounding area. Species chosen for <br /> revegetation shall be compatible for the proposed post-extraction land use and shall be <br /> of adequate diversity to establish successful reclamation." a ce 114LA <br /> u " fit <br /> S;jr <br /> G Pt,�. � / 4� <br /> � hu.w� e.u5� 'tt i"1.a df5�naq 0. <br /> The Division believes that the reclamation plan changes as proposed by the amenrment J <br /> (when modified by the propo ed condition sup�ges�te�d��y the Division i a lette to fh .( ,5,j;,,` <br /> operator dated June 4, 199�doesyrovr for a re'-T ion pla$ 11 t o�ild ave SQ u <br /> reasonable chance of providing what is required by these sections of the Act and Rules, <br /> given the stated end land uses of wildlife habitat and general agriculture. <br /> Comment: NThe currently approved seed mix includes non-natives that are detrimental to <br /> esta 'shment of natives. Mr. Carl Mount wrote a 5/16/86 letter discussing this. <br /> Theref6 request that the seed mix be modified to include only natives." <br /> Response: The Division can require this of the operator,because a seed mixture change was not <br /> proposed in the amen ent and the Act and Rules do not require the use of native <br /> species in the seed mixture. the operator would like to change the approved seed <br /> mixture, a technical revision wo d be required to do so. <br /> Comment: "The Amendment is not technically a ood plan for restoring wildlife habitat and <br /> agriculture, which are the required end use ccording to the permit application. For <br /> example, the dewatering ditch shown in the Am ent reclamation plan map was not <br /> in the 1989 map. Dewatering is directly contradicto to establishing wildlife habitat, <br /> which benefits from moist habitats, of which there w uch prior to mining (see <br /> vegetation description in original, 1981 permit applicat n). Dewatering also <br />