1997-06-13_REVISION - M1981302 (69)

Home Browse Search

Issue No. 3. Whether the Amendment conforms to the stated post-mining land use of wildlife and agriculture? Issue No. 4. Whether the proposed decrease in exposed water surface is appropriate to the stated post-mining land use of wildlife and agriculture and to habitat management and creation? Issue No. 5. Whether the topsoil replacement as proposed in the Amendment is sufficient to support the plant species to be established in the reclamation? Each of these issues is addressed in turn in below. Issue No. 1. Whether the proposed changes to the berm, which have been styled as a Technical Revision ("TR") and are not now included in the Amendment AApp ication, properly constitute part of the Amendment and should be considered as part of the Amendment? The parties opposed to the amendment are the proponents of this element of the Order and, on that basis, bear the burden of proof. See Section 24-4-104(7), C.R.S. The opposing parties appear to contend that: (1) the April 30, 1997 TR is an attempt to obtain the Division's approval of the berm and drainage channel as a new part of the mining permit area; and/or(2) that flood plain issues outside the berm related to the April 30, 1997 TR are inextricably tied to grading work inside the berm contemplated in the amendment. The opposing parties, namely Boulder County and the City of Boulder, seem to believe that the berm and the drainage channel were not part of Permit No. M-81-302 as approved by the Board on April 22, 1982, and that even if they were, grading and drainage work on the pit floor inside the berm cannot occur since such work"necessarily"implicates the berm. To date, the opposing parties have offered no specific basis for linking the April 30, 1997 TR and the amendment The amendment before the Board is limited to grading and drainage on the pit floor. It does not impact or change previously approved post-mining land uses, adversely affect adjacent lands, or impact the prevailing hydrologic balance, all issues the Board is authorized to consider in reviewing a reclamation plan amendment request. A. The berm and the drainage channel are recognized by the County as being included in mining and reclamation plans approved by the Board. The bean and the drainage channel pre-date the Deepe Farm Pit. In February, 1980 Boulder County issued Flatiron a special use approval to install the berm and drainage channel under Planning Commission Docket#AR-79-4. The berm and the drainage channel were included in the land affected by Permit M-81-302 issued by the Board to Flatiron on April 22, 1982. Flatiron's December 24, 1981 permit application, which included the original "Reclamation Plan 5