1997-06-11_REVISION - M1981302 ‎(3)‎

• Permit No: M1981302
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 6/11/1997
• Doc Name: FILE M-81-302
• Type & Sequence: TR6
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

IIIIIIIIIIII��IIIII RECEIVED
BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD JUN 11 1997
STATE OF COLORADO Division of Minerals a ueoiogy
File No. M-81-302
APPEAL OF INTERESTED PARTY (OBJECTOR) BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF BOULDER, OF THE DMG'S DECISION TO
TREAT APPLICATION TR-006 FOR THE WESTERN MOBILE DEEPE FARM PIT AS
A TECHNICAL REVISION, INSTEAD OF AS PART OF APPLICATION AM-002
IN THE MATTER OF THE WESTERN MOBILE - DEEPE FARM PIT - AMENDMENT
002 AND TECHNICAL REVISION 006
The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Boulder
(BOCC) submits this appeal of the DMG's decision to treat as a
technical revision the matters submitted by Permittee/Applicant
Western Mobile as part of its application TR-006, which the Board
contends should properly be reviewed as part of AM-002 , File No.
M-81-302 . As grounds for this appeal, the BOCC states as
follows:
1. On March 6, 1997, Western Mobile Boulder, Inc. ("Western
Mobile") filed an application (AM-002) to amend its reclamation
permit granted in File No. M-81-302, for the primary purpose of
reducing the approved lake acreage in the permit area and
incorporating certain other internal drainage changes.
2 . On or about May 2, 1997, Western Mobile filed an application
for a technical revision to File No. M-81-302, primarily to
increase the height of and obtain DMG approval for the berm
feature in the permit area.
3 . At some time following the informal pre-hearing conference
on AM-002, which occurred on May 6, 1997, the DMG, over the
objections of numerous interested parties at that conference,
made a decision to treat the application filed as TR-006 as a
technical revision, and not as part of AM-002 .
4. By letter dated May 8, 1997, a copy of which is attached to
and incorporated into this Appeal as Exhibit A, the BOCC formally
objected to the proposed bifurcated treatment and review of the
berm from the rest of the amendment application, for the reason
that the berm and its proposed changes are significant
reclamation features from a flood-control standpoint. It is
impossible to rationally assess the flood control implications of
1