1997-06-05_REVISION - M1981302 (12)

Home Browse Search

would occur based on the reclaimed contours proposed in technical revision TR-006." Mr. Sorenson notes other design details needed in order for the Division to approve the berm. 5) "...Any change in the site's topography is key to the flow regime of the South Boulder Creek floodplain." (Larry Lang, Colorado Water Conservation Board, 10/16/96 letter). Therefore it is also relevant that the reclamation plan maps received by the County versus the state were consistently and significantly contradictory, both in 1981 and in the 1988/1989 amendments. (See my 10/15/96 presentation to Boulder County Commissioners.) The State plan shows lowered contours and the County plan shows a return to original contours. CMLRB has a responsibility and unique opportunity to address the topography of the permit area: I believe it is unlikely that Western-Mobile will submit the current amendment to the County. Therefore the CMLRB would be the only forum for public comment on this amendment, and its important effects. 6) All parties who are familiar with the South Boulder Creek hydrology and floodplain agree that the alluvial floodplain that includes the Deepe Farm Pit has complex and as-yet unpredicted flood behavior. All agree that the land contours of the pit (including the berm) have floodplain implications with serious health and safety consequences. All are aware of the current floodplain study by Taggart Engineering under the auspices of Urban Drainage and Flood Control District that is addressing flood hazard mitigation. The study is scheduled for completion in September, 1997. Without the results of this study, the floodplain implications of the berm can not be properly addressed. And current acceptance of the berm and amendment topography would cripple the ongoing floodplain planning process by predetermining important land contours. 7) The proposed berm is not maintenance free, whereas DMG requires that reclamation features require minimal maintenance. 8) Federal and state policy do not favor structural flood-control measures; e.g. berms. 9) Federal and state policy advocate a landscape approach that is ecosystem based, or considers watershed function as a whole, not as artifically fragmented and unrelated pieces. The health and safety consequences of crippled masterplanning could be severe. THEREFORE I request that the amendment be denied at the June 25 or 26 Hearing. I ask that any reclamation plan be approved after the current floodplain study is completed, and that the contours and berm be consistent with the recommendations of the ongoing floodplain studies. THEREFORE I request that in future changes to this permit application, the applicant and CMLRB consider both the Amendment and the TR-06 as one. The substantive floodplain, groundwater and end use issues are essentially the same and objections to TR-06 may be expected to come before the Board again if the applicant keeps them separate. THE GROUNDWATER CONSEQUENCES OF THE LAND CONTOURS ARE UNKNOWN AND LIKELY UNDESIRABLE 9) The insufficiency of groundwater data is also mentioned in the 5/26 and 5/26/97 memos of Mr. Allen Sorenson that are noted in 4) above. 10)Where are the groundwater data requested by MLRD in letters to Western Mobile on 12/28/89 and 2/28/90? I request that Western distribute this data to all interested parties. 11) The Amendment includes a dewatering trench that was not in the 1989 plan. What are the expected effects both on-site and off-site? 12) There are two Federally listed rare species that are known from adjacent lands, Ute ladies tresses, Spiranthes diluvialis, and Prebles'jumping mouse, Zepus hudsonius preblei. One species has been reported from the permit area. Both depend upon moist habitats, and are likely to be negatively impacted by dewatering.