1997-06-05_REVISION - M1981302 ‎(10)‎

• Permit No: M1981302
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 6/5/1997
• Doc Name: PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF INTERESTED PARTY OBJECTOR BOARD OF CNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER CNTY
• Type & Sequence: AM2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

2 . Jeff Moline, Resource Planner, Boulder County Parks and Open
Space Department, who may testify to the relative plant and
wildlife habitat benefits of the current reclamation plan as
compared to the proposed amended plan, potential impacts on the
endangered species identified by the City of Boulder, and related
issues.
3 . H. Lawrence Hoyt, Boulder County Attorney, who may be
available to respond to any pertinent legal questions posed by
the MLRB or otherwise raised at the hearing.
The BOCC also endorses the testimony of the witnesses of the City
of Boulder and -any other party objecting to the subject amendment
on the same grounds as those proposed by the BOCC.
The BOCC reserves the right to call appropriate rebuttal
witnesses at the hearing.
Statement of the Issues: The BOCC believes that the following
issues comprise its main objections to this application;
1. The application is incomplete to the extent it does not
include the levee embankment (so-called berm) which the Applicant
has substantially modified during the term of its current
reclamation permit. The MLRB must review the berm as a
significant feature which exceeds the scope of a mere technical
revision, and which has important potential flood control
implications integral to the amendment's other proposed
hydrologic-related changes in the permit area. As the basis for
this objection, the Board incorporates its letter of Supplemental
Objections dated May 8, 1997 , a copy of which is attached to this
Statement as Exhibit A.
2 . Pending the outcome of the proposed Phase III of the UDFCD
South Boulder Creek floodplain study, referenced above, it is
impossible to accurately assess what impact the reinforced berm,
or the other hydrologic-related changes proposed in this
amendment, will have on the floodplain in this area and on
recommended flood mitigation measures or plans. Absent this
critical information the MLRB cannot meaningfully apply the
reclamation standard set forth in Section 34-32 . 5-116 (4) (h) of
the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of
Construction Materials (see also 34-32-116 (7) (g) ) , that
[djisturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of
the affected land and of the surrounding area and to
the quality and quantity of water in surface and
groundwater systems, both during and after the mining
operation and during reclamation, shall be minimized.
2