Laserfiche WebLink
Revised 07/06/97 Minutes - June 26-27, 1997 Page 22 <br /> They are not convinced that the people who live to the north and to the west who would be affected <br /> by a flood, really understand the significance of the Amendment. <br /> Mr. Cohan asked what Mr. Boles' definition of the typography. Mr. Boles deferred to Mr. Parker <br /> who replied that in the original Application, it did propose returning the property to pre-mining <br /> contours. It was a question from the County at the time as they were concerned with traffic. The <br /> answer at that time was that the deep lakes were going to go into the shale and shale expands when <br /> it is mined which would make up for the difference. The County reviewed the original levy <br /> constructions based on pre-mining contours which had extremely shallow flooding behind the levy. <br /> When they re-mapped the flood plain in 1985, which is the current flood plain map, it was also <br /> based on 1980 contours which were pre-mining contours at the site. So when that site was removed <br /> from the flood plain, part of the reason it was removed was the idea that there would be ineffective <br /> flow areas behind the levy because of the shallowness of the flood plain. Now that there is a hole <br /> dug that is about 15 feet lower, it substantially changes the status of the levy and the implications if <br /> that levy were to fail. There's a lot of difference between shallow flooding happening behind it and <br /> channelization of waters to the north. <br /> Mr. Cooley stated that the applicant has applied for a TR dealing with the berm and the Division has <br /> accepted that application as a TR, but has not ruled on whether it will be effective. He clarified that <br /> the City and County were objecting to the Division's actions on calling it a TR. Mr. Boles replied <br /> that their position is that it has a significant effect upon the proposed or approved Reclamation Plan. <br /> Mr. Cooley asked for clarification on how the TR significantly changes and alters the Reclamation <br /> Plan. Mr. Boles said that the Reclamation Plan on file does not show a berm around the parameter <br /> of the site, it shows the site being excavated 12-18 feet below the existing grade. Concern is that <br /> excavating the site below the grade on this particular property allows water to channel away from <br /> South Boulder Creek and to the north, which brings it to the west side of the alluvial valley in areas <br /> that they had not anticipated. Adding the berm to the property is a significant change in features in <br /> that there was never an expectation on the part of the City or County, that the result of the mining <br /> operation would require the community to be protected by a levy system and not be restored to what <br /> had been represented as pre-mining grades, so that they had not worsened that plain situation. <br /> Mr. Cooley confirmed that the berm staying in place is what changes the Reclamation Plan. Mr. <br /> Boles replied that the addition of the berm is the significant change to the Reclamation Plan. Mr. <br />