My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1997-06-13_REVISION - M1981302 (69)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981302
>
1997-06-13_REVISION - M1981302 (69)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2022 4:24:29 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:39:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981302
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/13/1997
Doc Name
BRIEF IN COMMENT ON JUNE 9 1997 PROPOSED PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE ORDER
Type & Sequence
AM2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
majority of the [Deepe Farm Pit] site is protected by the recently constructed flood control berm and <br /> channel so that only lands east of the berm will be subject to 100-year flooding. . . . The <br /> construction and impacts on the flood control berm and channel were reviewed by the Public Works <br /> Department for Docket#AR-79-4 . . . . Care must be taken not to damage or structurally undermine <br /> the flood control berm and channel, including protective rip-rap" (Exhibit No. 4). <br /> These communications from the City of Boulder to Boulder County <br /> demonstrate that the berm and the channel have played, and are likely to continue to play, a vital role <br /> in ameliorating flood impacts in the South Boulder Creek flood plain. However, the City and the <br /> County are now attempting to use the Board's reclamation process to argue that South Boulder <br /> Creek flood plain impacts are not only within the Board's jurisdiction to review,but that such issues <br /> can only be viewed in conjunction with an amendment that is limited to grading and drainage inside <br /> of the berm and out of the regulated flood plain. Based on statements made at the June 5, 1997 Pre- <br /> Hearing Conference, these claims appear not aimed at the validity of the present amendment, but at <br /> potential uses of the property subsequent to reclamation bond release. In October, 1996 the Division <br /> responded to similar comments made by one of the opposing parties in this proceeding. Therein the <br /> Division stated that it was the Division's: <br /> understanding that the existing berm was present on the site prior to <br /> the permit issuance . . . . It is also the Division's understanding that <br /> Boulder County was aware of the berm construction as early as 1979, <br /> and did not notify the Division of any objections during the <br /> permitting process. It is Board policy that the Division shall not <br /> enforce other agency's regulations. The Board approved the permit <br /> with a final use of wildlife and agriculture, not intensive <br /> development,but if the area is developed after reclamation and permit <br /> release, the Board and Division will have no control over later <br /> activities (Exhibit No. 25). <br /> D. Boulder County has reserved the right to appeal any decision by the <br /> Division to treat the April 30, 1997 TR request as a technical revision. <br /> Shortly after filing the April 30, 1997 TR request, Boulder County raised <br /> concerns regarding whether the April 30, 1997 request is appropriate for consideration as a TR, or <br /> whether it should be resubmitted as an amendment. In response to these concerns, and after <br /> consultation with the Division, Western Mobile voluntarily waived the 30-day processing time <br /> otherwise applicable to April 30, 1997 TR request. See Construction Materials Rule 1.9.1. <br /> Western Mobile submitted the April 30, 1997 request as a TR since it does not increase the <br /> affected acreage at the Deepe Farm Pit,or have a significant effect on the approved reclamation plan. <br /> Should the Division determine that the April 30, 1997 TR has somehow increased the acreage of the <br /> affected land or significantly affected the approved plan, it can request that Western Mobile resubmit <br /> the TR as an amendment. See Construction Materials Rule 1.1(6). That stated, an assessment of <br /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.