GENERAL46848 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

impacts to surface and groundwater quantity and quality, wildlife impacts and highway vehicle traffic impacts. The proposed Green and Croissant project site is located relatively faz from residential developments, in a area slated for commercial development by Weld County and the Town of Johnstown, on land not particularly well suited for other land uses, and the Proponent has included mitigation strategies in the development plan that enable them to conduct the proposed operations with low levels of social and environmental impact. Development of another site would presume relocation to another less desirable site, compromising the benefit afforded by mining this site, and requiring the Proponent to begin the lengthy mulfiple permitting processes anew. 5.4. Determination. I have conducted an independent analysis of the project alternatives and have determined that the applicant's preferred alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative available to the applicant. 6. Public Interest Review[33 CFR Part 320.3 and 320.4) [33 CFR Part 320.3 and 320.4]. The following paragraphs describe the potential direct impacts, both beneficial and detrimental, of the activity on various public interest factors considering the parameters that are necessary to ensure minimal adverse effects. Direct impacts aze the potential short and long-term effects of discharges on the chemical, physical, and biological components of the aquatic environment. Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. The following discussions reflect the resources that would be directly impacted by project implementation. The extent to which each resource is discussed is based on the issues and controversies surrounding it, the level of concern expressed by commenting publics, and the project's potential impact to the factor. 6.1 Wetlands [E.O. 11990J. Jurisdictional wetlands within the project site aze tributary to the Big Thompson River, a Waters of the United States. Non jurisdictional wetlands also exist at the site. The table below shows acreages of various wetlands at the site (the acreages on this table are corrections from the original approved Aug 13, 2001 wetland delineanon- the corrections occurred on June 18, 2004). Attachment 1 includes a mining plan map showing the locations of the wetlands. Wetland Feature Jurisdictional Status Total Area of all existin wetlands A. Bi Thom son River JD trib to S. Platte River not measured 8. Tailwater Wetlands Non-JD artificial/ irri ated 13.92 acres C. Oxbow or Channel wetlands JD surface connected 6.94 acres C' Isolated Oxbow wetlands Non-JD isolated 0.25 acres D. Sideslo a See Wetlands JD surface connected 5.51 acres E. Toeslo a Wetlands JD surface connected 3.45 acres Total 30.12 acres Because of the nature of this activity being reviewed under an individual permit, and because of NEPA regulations, the Corps has the authority to require mitigation for all impacted wetlands. Regazding the requirement for mitigation of non jurisdictional wetlands, this is based on the Corps' scope of analysis under NEPA. See Appendix B to 33 CAR Part 325 (NEPA regulations). Also, see the below informal guidance from HQ which relates to NEPA scope of analysis: Project: Green ~ Croissant Aggregate Mining Applicao[: Loveland Ready Mix, lnc. Pg 20 of 57 Corps File No: 200180205 Wa[envay: Big Thompson Wetlands. Weld County, CO