Laserfiche WebLink
We strongly object to bifurcating the berm from the rest of <br /> the amendment process for several reasons. Although the original <br /> berm predated the original M?PB permit for the Deepe Farm Pit, <br /> the significant modifications which have taken place to the berm <br /> during the permit's term should subject the entire berm to MLRB <br /> review as part of the current amendment application. We <br /> understand that the DM.G staff has taken the position, or may <br /> adopt the position, that the modifications to the berm constitute <br /> only a technical revision, and that the State can review only the <br /> changes to the berm -- not the entire feature -- as part of its <br /> technical review. This position constitutes an unnecessarily <br /> narrow view of pre-permit 'grandfathering" principles, and <br /> undermines the MLRB's important public function in reviewing the <br /> hydrologic impacts of proposed reclamation features (including <br /> changes to existing features) . See C.R. S. Section 34-32- <br /> 1J-6 (7) ( (g) , requiring proposed reclamation plans to minimize <br /> "[djisturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the <br /> affected land and of the surrounding area and to the quality and <br /> quantity of water in surface and ground water systems both during <br /> and after the mining operation and during reclamation. " <br /> Plainly put, Western Mobile has chosen to make substantial <br /> changes to the original berm feature during the life_ cf its <br /> reclamation permit. Those changes are clearly subject to the <br /> State's review under the permit. Moreover, the hydrologic impact <br /> of those changes -- and related issues such as the stability of <br /> the berm and its impact on internal drainage patterns and <br /> anticipated flood flows -- cannot be properly analyzed if the <br /> State narrowly confines its review to the changes to the berm. <br /> meaningful hydrologic analysis requires the State to consider the <br /> relationship of the changes to the entire berm feature_, and hence <br /> to consider the entire berm itself. It defies logic, as well as <br /> sound public policy in light of potential hydrologic impacts, to <br /> arbitrarily stop the State's review at the ber:is changes, and not <br /> consider the effect of the feature as a whale or the relationship <br /> of the changes to the entire feature. <br /> Subjecting the entire berm to review as part of the present <br /> amendment application is fair to the permittee, Western Mobile . <br /> Choosing to make the recent (or proposed) changes to the berm was <br /> entirely within the control of Western Mobile. It is only <br /> reasonable that the permittee, by choosing to alter or disturb a <br /> preexisting feature, should expect that those changes would or <br /> could subject the entire feature to State review. This <br /> conclusion is entirely consistent with how the Board of County <br /> Commissioners has exercised its authority in conducting its own <br /> permitting functions, such as in the land use area. <br /> 2 <br />