1997-06-13_REVISION - M1981302 (56)

Home Browse Search

i Page 2 proposed change an amendment under the provisions of the Mined Land Reclamation Act. An amendment, by definition, is any change that "increases the acreage to be affected or otherwise revises the reclamation plan" (C.R.S. 34-32.5-112(7)(a)). The proposed technical revision does not satisfy either amendment triggering criteria. Second,the proposed Technical Revision does not request a change in the post mining land use nor does it propose a change in the reclamation plan. Since no modification to the reclamation plan nor the affected area was proposed by the Technical Revision, the Division did not err in its decision to process the proposed revision to the "berm" as a Technical Revision. Third, according to Division files, the area requested by the operator for "berm" modification has always been within the proposed affected area. Specifically, Technical Revision application TR-006 states that the operator will "...modify the side slopes and final elevations of a portion of the been along the southeast side... ". An evaluation of the files shows that "Stage One" and "Stage Four" mining areas were proposed in the original permit application. These two areas include the area where the berm was originally constructed and clearly places the berm within the affected area. Comment: "The application is incomplete and the Division accepted it and acted on it in violation of Construction Materials Rules 6.3.4, 6.3.9, 6.3.12, and possibly 6.3.5. As such, the Board should require the applicant to re-submit a complete application. the City has been unable to review an application of extreme importance due to its inadequacy.". Response: The Division disagrees that there has been any violation of the above referenced rules. First, the permit amendment submitted by the operator and the procedures implemented by the Division comply with the amendment process established in Rule 1.8. Second, there has been no violation of Rule 6.3.4 which simply establishes what must be included in a reclamation plan. The plan may be modified through the permit amendment process or through technical revisions to the plan. The Division cannot respond to the a general reference to Rule 6.3.4 unless specific Rule inadequacies are provided. It should be noted that in the amendment process, an operator is not required by Rule 1.10(l) to submit "...any information which duplicates applicable previous submittals.". Third, Rule 6.3.9, Exhibit I - Proof of Filing with the County Clerk, requires an applicant to provide proof that the application was placed with the County Clerk and Recorder. According to the application file, the amendment application was accepted by Ms. Yvonne Sanders, of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder Office, on February 24, 1997.