Laserfiche WebLink
Rcnscd: 07/06/97 Minutes - June 26-27, 1997 Page 24 <br /> this to the Board's attention as he feels that there is some type of implication that the mining is <br /> responsible for the site and the report which was documented years before mining ever occurred, <br /> stating that there are issues north of this property, is an important factor. <br /> Mr. Taylor listed the City of Boulder's Issues: 1. The berm is new - Looking at the 1991 <br /> Reclamation Plan, the berm is an added feature as it is not represented on the 1989 Reclamation <br /> Plan.; 2. Pre-mining berm has been changed - It has been modified and increased in height since its <br /> approval as a land form* by the Boulder County. The berm had been considered an existing <br /> feature on the site in the original mining and site reclamation, however, the original berm was an <br /> average of about three feet tall and was not to exceed five feet above the natural grades prior to <br /> mining. The berm is now physically higher than that in many places. The berm is also higher than <br /> the grades that were requested in the Green-Meyer Study which also indicated that it has been <br /> modified through the course of the years.; 3. Addition of berm is not defined or addressed - The <br /> Amendment narrative, as well as the map, does not speak at all to the berm which is a significant <br /> feature. It only speaks to the lakes.; 4. New berm is integral l to plan - The significant lowering of <br /> grades across the property has created a scenario that would allow for the diversion of flood waters. <br /> It appears that the berm would then represent a feature that is intended to maintain t e hydrologic <br /> balance on the property.; 5. Issue of public safety - The berm, if proposed to ferm as a flood <br /> protection levy to mitigate adverse effects that the mine has created, is definitely a significant <br /> change to the Plan and an issue of public safety that should require greater attention than simply <br /> going through a TR.; 6. The Board should not be placed in position to decide Flood Plain <br /> Management - Would be more appropriate to place before flood plain agencies that have <br /> jurisdiction in the area and that would provide a better forum for allowing public reaction and <br /> comment to the types of flood plain mitigation that may be proposed to the property.; 7. How can <br /> pre vicus({ <br /> you modify a berm that has not been ifs approved as a TR - They find it difficult to <br /> understand how a berm can be modified that is not shown in any approved plan.; and 8. State <br /> owned land with life safety issues should go through a normal public process. <br /> Mr. Cooley asked Mr. Taylor if they understood that the City or any member of the public has a <br /> right to appeal any decision made by the Division. Mr. Taylor stated that the berm is so integral to <br /> the Reclamation Plan, that it is part of those changes and is significant enough that it should be <br /> included as an Amendment. <br />