_REVISION - M1981302 ‎(133)‎

• Permit No: M1981302
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Name: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE MLRB IN OBJECTION TO APPROVAL OF THE WESTERN MOBILE DEEPE
• Type & Sequence: AM2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Page 2
"berm" function during the 100-year design flood event does not, in itself, make the
proposed change an amendment under the provisions of the Mined Land Reclamation
Act.
An amendment, by definition, is any change that "increases the acreage to be affected
or otherwise revises the reclamation plan" (C.R.S. 34-32.5-112(7)(a)). The proposed
technic ion does not satisfy either amendment tEiggeringcriteria.
First, according to Division files, the area requested by the operator for "berm"
modification ways been within the proposed affected area. Specifically, 4he�—
ec mcal Revision ,palls-few "...Modify the side slopes and final elevations of a
portion of the berm along the southeast side...". An evaluation of the files shows that
"Stage One" and "Stage Four' mining areas were proposed in the original permit
CLgk& A1yv44 application.These two areas include the area where the berm was originally constructed
and clearly places the berm within the affected area.
�_ p0
Second ,the proposed Technical Revision does not request a change in the post mining
W'
land use nor does it propose a change in the reclamation plan. Since no modification
Q�r° f to the reclamation plan nor the affected area was proposed by the Technical Revision,
the Division did not err in its decision I't.o 1 process the proposed revision to the "berm" ,
aS aTech alRevision.S t1� ^rela�lU s� '.�
�st�, `oev-v— ��,,� i,. —006
1S% Wnunent: "The applications incomplete and the Division accepted it and acted on it in violation o
of Construction Materials Rules 6.3.4, 6.3.9, 6.3.12, and possibly 6.3.5. As such, the eaPe"
Board should require the applicant to re-submit a complete application. the City has t
been unable to review an application of extreme importance due to its inadequacy.". xis c1
� ,re4u•dr'ief.. �
Response: The Division is confused by reference to Rule 6.3.4 in such a general manner by the Nt
Objectors. This Rule encompasses many issues. The Division cannot respond to the t{ ,e ee..•;t
commentor's concerns, unless specific Rule inadequacies are provided. In a general nree.. Se?
sense,in the amendment process, an operator is not required by Rule 1.10(1) to submit `i ` 'Dxy opw"%
etiPe`tec fo
"...any information which duplicates applicable previous submittals.". SKue 04'
+d►w .
Rule 6.3.9, Exhibit I - Proof of Filing with the County Clerk, requires an applicant to
provide proof that the application was placed with the County Clerk and Recorder.
According to the application file, the amendment application was accepted by
Ms. Yvonne Sanders, of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder Office, on
February 24, 1997.
Rule 6.3.12,Exhibit 1 - Permanent Manmade Structures, requires, in summary, that an
operator provide an acceptable engineering evaluation demonstrating that mining and
reclamation activities will not damage structures within 200 feet of the affected area.
Alternatively, the operator may provide an agreement with owners of structures within