PERMFILE133103 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 999 List of Objectors' Concerns The City of Greeley is concerned that designating the end land-use as "water resources" will compromise the wildlife habitat in the area. They would prefer that the reclamation plan included several more measures (such as the inclusion of more native species, and [he oversight of the project by a qualified wildlife biologisUecologist) that would make it a wildlife habitat. They are also concerned about dust and noise impacts to the City residents to the south of the site. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) has commented that their office should contacted if any dredging or filling associated with this project is to take place in waters of the United States, with Mc Terry McKee to be the contact. Comments from the Slate Division of Wildlife regarding [he Weld County pemii[ have been forwarded to DMG. The Division of Wildlife's main concerns involving this development are the narrowing of the riparian corridor associated with the Poudre River; obstruction of the movement of free-ranging wildlife; loss of wetlands, subirrigated pasture, warm-water sloughs, wildlife movement corridors, and potential habitat; water quality issues that may impact small fish habitats, and the permanent loss of wildlife value because of increased human disturbance. They recommend a different seed mixture, a weed control plan, variation of the shorelines, protection of the warm-water sloughs, careful design of the fencing so as not to trap wildlife, a minimum 100-foot setback from the center of the river, and a complete survey for Preble's jumping mouse and U[e Ladies' Tresses prior to the onset of mining. Several residents have written in with objections, including the following issues. DMG can only address those concerns over which it has jurisdiction under the Colorado Land Reclamation Acto for the Extraction of Construction Materials (C.R.S. 34-32.5-1O1 et.seq.). With this in mind, the list below summarizes the objector's concerns and notes which adequacy items listed above address these concerns. l) Incorrect siting of buildings and homes on the map, with fencing omitted from the maps. Please verify distances and include fencing on [he maps. This is concern is included above under DMG technical adequacy item number 4. 2) Incorrect sizing of Rocky Road on the map. Please verify [he dimensions of this road and adjust the map if errors have been made. This is concern is included above under DMG technical adequacy item number 4. 3) Lack of drainage the location identification, or consideration of the consequences of disturbing these drainage tiles. There is also a concern that no setback agreement has been reached and no geotechnical stability analysis of excavations near this the has been done. This concern is included above, under DMG technical adequacy item number 3 and number 9, and in Tom Schreiner's review, number 3. 4) Concerns about damage to existing structures near the site, and the lack of an engineering evaluation of the area or setback agreement with [he landowners. This concern is included above under DMG technical adequacy item number 10.