1997-06-05_REVISION - M1981302 (10)

Home Browse Search

For this reason the amendment must be denied (with the ability of the Applicant to resubmit when the pertinent flood control information becomes available, which is expected to be yet this year) . In the alternative, the MLRB could impose a condition providing that the Applicant/permittee conform the berm (as well as other hydrologic-related reclamation measures on the affected land) to the adopted results of the UDFCD floodplain study. However, because the results of that study will not be known until the fall, the Board strongly urges the MLRB to deny the application for lack of critical flood control information at this time. The ideal solution would be to delay the present hearing until late summer or early fall, as the City of Boulder suggests in its Pre-hearing Statement. 3 . The proposed amendment represents a radical departure from the approved plan in terms of its surface land and water features. The MLRB should give due deference to the merits of the existing plan, which has received both State and County approval, and has led to legitimate expectations in both surrounding property owners and the public at large that the post-mining land forms would include substantial water bodies and associated plant and wildlife habitat. In addition, the proposal threatens to cause significant adverse impacts on plant and wildlife habitat outside the permit area on adjacent properties. The burden rests on the Applicant here to show, as required by Construction Materials Rule 3 . 1.8 (2) , that (h]abitat management and creation, if part of the Reclamation Plan, shall be directed toward encouraging the diversity of both game and non-game species, and shall provide protection, rehabilitation or improvement of wildlife habitat (emphasis added] . The County contends that the proposed plan does not meet this requirement. 4. The County endorses the statement of issues contained in the Pre-hearing Statement of the City of Boulder. Identification of Exhibits: The BOCC incorporates into this Statement the letters of objection which it has already submitted to the MLRB and/or the DMG staff, which are the letters dated May 81 1997 (attached as Exhibit A hereto) ; April 17 , 1997 (attached as Exhibit B) ; and December 12 , 1996 (attached as Exhibit C) . The BOCC may submit exhibits from the official files of the Boulder County Land Use Department or the DMG/MLRB showing the original or existing approved reclamation plan or plans. 3