Laserfiche WebLink
Revised: 07/06/97 Minutes - June 26-27, 1997 Page 30 <br /> Division evaluates the plans operators submit, review it against performance standards and try to <br /> see if they meet those standards. In regards to a continent made regarding that appropriate notice <br /> was not given concerning the TR, a public notice is not required for a TR, so therefore they believe <br /> that the operator did not err in terms of public notice. It is not that the Division disagrees with the <br /> City, but that is the way the Divisions process is set up and they have to follow their process <br /> according to Statutes and Regulations. <br /> Mr. Long stated that the County of Boulder, City of Boulder and the citizens firmly believe that the <br /> TR should be a portion of this particular amendment and therefore should be incorporated in and <br /> therefore the process begins again. Absent a ruling by the Board that in fact is the case, then they <br /> take the next step and firmly believe that it should be a stand alone amendment at a minimum. <br /> Mr. Cattany asked for clarification on jurisdiction. Mr. Humphries responded that regardless of <br /> what the Board does in terms of an approval, if there is a superior agency to the Division—such as <br /> some Federal agency—and they make a decision that requires an operator to do some type of <br /> mitigation of a mine site, if that mitigation takes place within the Permit boundary and the Federal <br /> agency says `operator, you must do such and such' and that change effects any approval that the <br /> Board has given, then the operator would have to come in after they receive Federal (or state <br /> agency) approval and modify their plan through some type of TR or amendment to incorporate that <br /> change. <br /> Mr. Humphries pointed out that the Amendment that the Division has proposed does not <br /> contemplate any changes to the berm. What the maps show is only the current on-site conditions at <br /> the site. Changes to the berm are being handled by the proposed TR 006 and as the Division will <br /> show through their testimony that they do not believe that the berm is an issue for the Amendment. <br /> Even though it's an important issue and they don't discount that, under the Division's process and <br /> the way the operator submitted it, they have to handle it as a TR. Exhibit 15G-Division's <br /> Testimony. He also said whether the Formal Public Hearing now set for June 26, 1997 should be <br /> continued and reset to include consideration of the proposed changes to the berm in conjunction <br /> with and as part of the Amendment, because the objectors claim that this is a complex application. <br /> According to Rule 1.1(10) of the Construction Material Rules, a "complex application" is an <br /> application which may require the Division to involve additional professional staff-or outside <br /> professional or agency expertise, and is beyond what the Division considers to be a typical <br />