Laserfiche WebLink
Page 6 <br /> alternatives that Western Mobile considered which would not require a flood protection <br /> barrier." <br /> Response: The perimeter levee proposal for the Deepe Farm Pit is not part of the pending <br /> amendment application, and is now the subject of a technical revision to the Deepe <br /> Farm Pit permit. As part of the review process for the technical revision application, <br /> the Division has requested additional information from the operator on the floodplain <br /> impacts of the proposed levee compared to the floodplain impacts, based on the <br /> previously approved reclamation topography. The Division will use the requested <br /> additional information to make a determination as to whether the proposed levee will <br /> result in damage to adjoining property, and whether the proposed levee serves to <br /> effectively minimize disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected <br /> land and of the surrounding area. Based on a preliminary review of the available flood <br /> hazard studies for the reach of South Boulder Creek in the vicinity of the Deepe Farm <br /> Pit, it appears that the developed areas north and northwest of the pit would incur a <br /> greatly increased flood hazard, if the levee is removed, than exists with the levee in <br /> place. <br /> Comment: the City of Boulder and Boulder County have continued to express opposition to <br /> establishment of a permanent flood protection levee on the Deepe Farm Pit mining site <br /> without exhaustive consideration of all possible alternatives to a levee system. To this <br /> end, the City of Boulder requests that the DMG refrain from adopting the proposed <br /> reclamation plan amendment for the Deepe Farm Pit until there is a final determination <br /> of the appropriate flood mitigation measures for the area." <br /> Response: By suggesting that the Division require an exhaustive consideration of all possible <br /> alternatives to a levee system, the City of Boulder is, in effect, requesting that the <br /> Division make a suitability determination. There is no statutory or regulatory <br /> justification for making suitability determinations at construction materials sites. The <br /> Division can review plans that are developed by operators or applicants and can <br /> approve, deny, or require modifications to those plans, but the Division cannot require <br /> an operator or applicant to consider alternative plans. <br /> The Division is required to approve reclamation plans proposed by applicants or <br /> operators, and the approvals must be issued within specific time lines, unless one or <br /> more grounds for denial exist. The grounds for denial are listed in Section <br /> 34-32.5-115(4), C.R.S. Based on an evaluation of the floodplain information that has <br /> been available to the Division up to this point, no grounds for denial of the operator's <br /> levee proposal are present. However,final determinations regarding the levee proposal <br /> cannot be made until the operator responds to the Division's adequacy review for <br /> technical revision TR-006, the levee proposal technical revision. <br /> Comment: "[The proposed permit amendment contemplates a] significantly lower grade of the <br />