PERMFILE46869 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

company must first obtain county per- mits and ihzn state pzrmi[s. The most difficult approval process was the county one. The next step was to design thz min- ing and reclamation plan m be submit- ted to the Boulder County Planning De- partmzntand the state a,encies. To de- sign this plan, on which the company had thus far committed nearly onz-half million dollars, Flatiron called upon zxperts in many fields who were both locally and nationally recognized. In- cluded among these were experts on flora, fauna, water, noise, water and hydrology, as well as legal authorities. Thz company asked these experts to design a reclamation plan with very few limits nn the company's pan other than the requirement of gelling at least 2,200,000 tons of gravel and that economic considzrations be used to de- cide between reasonably equal alterna- tives. Following m:my hours of joint sessions over atwo-month period, a conceptual plan was devised. To make sure that the design tzam was reFlecting the Goals of the reasonable environmen- tal groups in Boulder, the company asked the Thorne Institute, which is considered the most highly respected environmental research organization in the Boulder area, to serve as a sounding board for the design team's ideas. This lacer move proved to be invaluable, both for the ideas provided by the Insti- tute representatives and later through the credibility they were able to provide during the hearing processes, The plan developed by thz design team called fur attempting to recreate the stream side environment to what it was prior to disturbance by the first farmers in the aria. In addition, the team recommended that humans should normally be excluded from the urea once it was reclaimed. Once the low-human-access, natural area plan was approved by the land- owner and by the Flatiron owners, it was exposed to the community. Ideas were solicited from the more than 20 environmental groups active at that time, and special presentations were made to across-section of the profes- sional, and business people and to the zlected officers of the water users group whose water rights would be affected by the plan. A neighborhood meeting was held for the 26 adjoining land own- ers who might be affected by the plan and subsequznt to this meeting, Harold Short, Flatiron chairman, and Ed McDowell visited all 26 families to ~„ .p ,~ ~15~ ~ 2. }- .-_ . . ,.,,,w.~- ' Ji - ~ R A 600-tph portable erwhing antl ecreening plant processes the raw material during the winter months, stockpiling the finished products for delivery in the spring and summer give them an individualized explana- tion of the plan. The next step was the submission of the plan m the County Planning De- partment for approval. Three months had elapsed since the design team had first met to develop the concept. Thz first Planning Department hearing was held in June, 1972; afour-hour meeting which resulted in the rzyuest being ta- bled for additional information. At this point, the environmental impact state- ment numbered over 100 pages in con- densed form. The requests for addi- tionalquantitative data required that all members of the design team gather more data and also required the com- pany to employ air quality and dust experts to quantify thz plant's dust im- pact on hwnans, the rare fzrn, and ani- mals in the area. The second hearing, held in Novem- ber, 1972, also lasted four hours and was held before a packed hearing room. At the end of this hearing, the com- pany was givzn approval to mine about two-thirds of the area with little hope of mining the remaining portion. Also at this hearing, a January 8. 1973, date was sal for the hearing before the County Commissioners who were to make the final decision. In the five weeks prior to the Com- missioner's hearing, the company was literally bombarded with requests from the County staff for new information and at the same time pressure was applied to try to get Flatiron to agree to the plan proposed by the Planning Board to mine only two-thirds of the gravel. The company refused the com- promise offer on the grounds that it didn't make sense to waste gravel re- sources when they felt that they had promised all reasonable safzguards to the environment, along; with an elabo- rate monitoring, bonding, and report- ingsystem to make certain the company performed as promised. As a rzsuh of all of the requests made upon the company, the summary of en- vironmental impact report presented to the County Commissioners at the January 8, 1973, meeting amounted to 233 pages, more Than double the size of the original report. After another four hours of discussions, the Commis- sioners approved of the Flatiron plan subject to zlaborate monitoring and reporting requirements. However, the battle wasn't over. Tu•o months after the permit was granted the environmentalists filed suit in the District Court against the County Commissioners charging they had ex- cezded their lawful authority, and asked that atl work at the site be stopped until the Commissioners complied with the law, Flatiron was granted permis- sion by the court to join the commis- sioners in the defense against the suit and the trial was held in July 1973. Some three weeks later, the judge dis- missed the suit and in September 1973, the company proceeded with prelimi- nary dewatering and overburden re- moval. Some planting and prepatory work had been started the previous March in anticipation of a court vicmry, so that by the lime mining was staved the reclamation process was underway, The mining and reclamation program