1997-06-11_REVISION - M1981302 (3)

Home Browse Search

the proposed reclamation plan changes within the permit area, without reviewing all of the potentially significant changes together. 5. By letter dated May 13, 1997, the City of Boulder, through its legal counsel, set forth additional arguments for why review of the berm should not be isolated from the main amendment application, AM-002 . The City's letter, which the BOCC incorporates by reference into this appeal, contains a cogent analysis of why the berm and its proposed changes meet the definition of an "amendment" under the MLRB's rules. 6. The final decision on how the berm will be reviewed (and whether it will be analyzed as part of AM-002) may be made by the MLRB at its hearing on AM-002 scheduled for June 26, 1997. To the extent that the MLRB proceeds to consolidate TR-006 with its action on AM-002, the BOCC acknowledges that this appeal will be moot, since the flood-control issues related to the berm will be addressed through a decision on AM-002 . 7. In light of the current uncertain situation regarding how TR-006 will be treated, the BOCC is filing this appeal to preserve its rights to separately challenge the DMG's treatment of the berm as a technical revision under TR-006, in accordance with applicable MLRB appeal and hearing procedures. The BOCC also reserves all of its rights to pursue this matter as a relevant issue under AM-002, in accordance with its Pre-hearing Statement in AM-002 , to the extent the MLRB allows the berm to be addressed in the pending amendment application. S. The BOCC considers that its appeal of this issue was first raised by its letter dated May 8, 1997 (Exhibit A hereto) , and that this formal notice of appeal relates back to that date. In fact, the BOCC maintained that the berm must be part of the proposed amendment at the May 6, 1997 pre-hearing conference, and in the BOCC's formal objection to AM-002 dated April 17, 1997, a copy of which is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 9 . Correspondence from the DMG staff to Western Mobile dated May 28, 1997, indicates that the DMG staff is continuing to process TR-006 as a technical revision, and that the Applicant will be delaying the June 2, 1997 TR decision date in order to respond to the DMG staff's adequacy review of the TR application. 10. This appeal is being filed pursuant to Construction Materials Rules 1.9 and 2 . 6, and any other applicable authority in the MLRB regulations and governing statutes. At the informal pre-hearing conference in AM-002 held on May 6, 1997, the DMG staff stated that its decision to treat TR-006 as a technical revision could be appealed to the MLRB, but specified no applicable rule or deadline for such an appeal. If such an 2