My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1997-06-05_REVISION - M1981302 (12)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981302
>
1997-06-05_REVISION - M1981302 (12)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2022 4:18:01 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:25:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981302
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/5/1997
From
NATURAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES INC
To
MLRB
Type & Sequence
AM2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2. TOPSOIL DEPTH <br /> A. The data collected in July, 1996 at the Deepe Farm Pit by state mine inspectors show that <br /> on about one-half of the reclaimed permit area, there is insufficient topsoil clearly less than the <br /> minimum 6 to 8 inches depth specified in the 1981 permit application. <br /> B. Sufficient topsoil is critical in order to achieve the 1981 permit application commitment to <br /> restore Agriculture and Wildlife Habitat, which are are the required future land uses. <br /> C. Sufficient topsoil is critical in order to support the County zoning as Agricultural and the <br /> Comprehensive Plan designation of Open Space, which is required by County Code (1 D above). <br /> D. Sufficient topsoil is critical to protect the soil from erosion by allowing the establishment <br /> of a good vegetative cover. <br /> E. Whether the future landowner is the City or the University of Colorado and the land is not <br /> developed for 25 years, the soil will be exposed to erosion for decades and requires protection. <br /> 1 RECLAMATION PLAN CONTOURS <br /> A. There are discrepancies between the County and the state mining permits (M-81-302) <br /> t hat are of considerable legal and public safety concern for the County. One problem is a new <br /> finding showing that the reclamation plan map contours of the County versus the state appear to be <br /> consistently and significantly contradictory, both at the time of the initial permit application in 1981 <br /> and again in the 1988/1989 amendments. <br /> B. Here is a sequential summary based upon my notes from County and state office visits in <br /> spring 1996, and a 1988 County map that I obtained from a neighbor who received it from Mrs. <br /> Margie Winter of Flatirons. I was unable to find a 1998 map in the County files and was told by Mr. <br /> Curt Parker that he was not aware of a map received in 1988, <br /> County 1981 <br /> - 7-10-81: County receives Flatirons Special Use Permit Application for Mining and <br /> Reclamation, Docket SU-81-10. Reclamation map (received 8-26-81) contours show a <br /> return to the original topography. <br /> - 12-4-81: Boulder County sends first letter of conditional approval to Flatirons and <br /> announces a public hearing 1/11/82. <br /> - January and February 1982: Boulder County sends letters of approval to Flatirons. <br /> State 1981 <br /> - 12/24/81: State Mined Land Reclamation Board receives application, M-81-302. <br /> Reclamation map contours show lowered topography. <br /> 4/22/82: State Mined Land Reclamation approves the permit with lowered contours. <br /> County 1988 <br /> 8/17/88: County receives permit amendment. Map shows return to original contours. <br /> 3/28/89: County approves amendment with original contours. <br /> State 1989 <br /> - 11/13/89: State receives revised mining plan. Map shows contours 12 feet lowered. <br /> 11/15/89: State gives conditional approval for amendment, with final approval in 1990. <br /> C. Why have the County and state received different reclamation plan maps from the Deepe <br /> Farm Pit mine operator? What are the legal or permitting consequences of these discrepancies? <br /> D. What are the flood hazard consequences of the different topographies shown in the <br /> County versus state maps? Predicted floodplains depend heavily upon assumed land contours. <br /> Again, I strongly urge the County Commissioners to schedule another hearing to consider <br /> revocation of the special use permit. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.