_REVISION - M1981302 (88) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Following disposition of the Preliminary Matters, the Board proceeded to consider Proposed Amendment 002 and, specifically, Issues 3-6 as set forth in the Pre-Hearing Conference Order. Having listened to testimony, including that of the witnesses on behalf of the City and County of Boulder, the Operator/Applicant Western Mobile, the Division of Minerals and Geology ("the Division"), the University of Colorado ("the University"), the Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District Board, as well as Jane Bunin, Ruth Blackmore, and Ben Binder, having further considered cross-examination and rebuttal/closing statements; having reviewed documents submitted in evidence; and having conducted public deliberation, the Board rules as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The testimony and exhibits presented by the Operator/Applicant, the Division and the University are persuasive on the issue of whether the Proposed Amendment conforms to the stated post-mining use of wildlife and agriculture. The Board finds that the Proposed Amendment does so conform. 2. The testimony and exhibits presented by the Operator/Applicant, the Division and the University are persuasive on the issue of whether the Proposed Amendment adequately addresses impacts on ground water levels and irrigation flows. The Board finds that the Proposed Amendment does adequately address this question. 3. The testimony and exhibits presented by the Operator/Applicant, the Division and the University are persuasive on the issue of whether the proposed decrease in exposed water surface is appropriate to the stated post-mining use of wildlife and agriculture and to habitat management and creation. The Board finds that the proposed decrease in exposed water surface is appropriate to these concerns. 4. The testimony and exhibits presented by the Operator/Applicant, the Division and the University, as well as the Operator/Applicant's agreement to and acceptance of the terms of the June 4, 1997 letter from Mineral Program Supervisor Bruce Humphries to Michael Hart, are persuasive on the issue of whether topsoil replacement as proposed in the Amendment is sufficient to support the plant species to be established in reclamation. The Board finds that topsoil replacement as proposed in the Amendment is sufficient for this purpose. 5. Concerns regarding both the berm and the replacement of topsoil are alleviated by the language contained in stipulations proposed by the Division, accepted by the Operator/Applicant and set forth below, as part of the Order. 2