1997-04-22_REVISION - M1981302 (9)

Home Browse Search

whereas the existing permit does not. However, there is considerable controversy about the long-term advisability and safety of this berm, and Federal policy does not favor structural flood-control measures; e.g. berms. The contours of the reclaimed land and the presence or absence of a flood control berm are features of the reclamation plan that also have significant effects on the South Boulder Creek floodplain. " ...any change in the site's topography is key to the flow regime of the South Boulder Creek floodplain." (Larry Lang, CWCB, 10/16/96letter). Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) in coordination with Boulder City and County is now studying the South Boulder Creek floodplain and how to best mitigate the adverse flood impacts associated with the South Boulder Creek floodplain. There is considerable concern for City of Boulder neighborhoods downstream from the permit area. Also, the County originally permitted the berm only for gravel mining or other open use, not as a permanent feature. (See 1. Bunin 7/15/96 letter to CMLRB) Because of its potential effects on the floodplain, approval of the berm now as shown in the amendment would cripple the ongoing floodplain planning process. Therefore I urge that CMLRB not approve any amendment that includes the berm until the South Boulder Creek floodplain planning processes are resolved. I also urge that CMLRB require that the final reclamation plan incorporate the findings and masterplanning for the South Boulder Creek floodplain. The planning to determine long-range measures for this area should include UDFCD, Boulder County, City of Boulder, University of Colorado Boulder, CDOT and the neighborhood interests. INSUFFICIENT TOPSOIL There is also a violation at the Deepe Pit that significantly affects its reclamation to wildlife habitat. DMG has documented insufficient depth of topsoil on about one-half of the already reclaimed Deepe Pit, which makes it very unlikely that there will be successful long-term revegetation, soil conservation and successful reclamation to wildlife habitat. I disagree with the 10/15/97 DMG staff decision that topsoil depths meet the minimum mine permit standards. The data are clear - DMG data show that one-half of the already reclaimed areas do not even have 5" of topsoil depth. I believe that delaying the decision to be judged on the criteria of vegetative cover is equivalent to accepting the insufficient topsoil depth. I urge CMLRB to require retopsoiling for topsoil-deficient areas already planted. I also request that CMLRB enforce its own requirement that areas revegetated in 1997 be topsoiled to the committed 6-8 inches minimum depth. NON-NATIVE SPECIES Lastly, there is another aspect of the reclamation plan that is technically unsatisfactory and will cause problems for wildlife habitat restoration. The currently approved seed mix includes non-native species that reclamation research in recent years has found to be detrimental to the establishment of native plants and animals. The seed mix should be