1997-06-13_REVISION - M1981302 (60)

Home Browse Search

Page 3 Fourth, Rule 6.3.12, Exhibit I - Permanent Manmade Structures, requires, in summary, that an operator provide an acceptable engineering evaluation demonstrating that mining and reclamation activities will not damage structures within 200 feet of the affected area. Alternatively, the operator may provide an agreement with owners of structures within 200 feet of the affected land which will compensate structure owners if mining or reclamation activities should damage these structures. Satisfying this exhibit requirement is not pertinent to this amendment. The original application has already addressed this issue by including the berm. Under the provisions of Rule 1.10(1), an applicant does not have to provide information if such information is unchanged. Rule 6.3.5, Exhibit E - Map, requires an applicant to submit various reclamation and mine plan maps. This information was supplied with the original application. Please see the explanation above regarding Rule 1.10(1). The proposed reclamation changes and associated map(s) were supplied with the amendment application as required by Rule. Comment: "The Applicant chose to submit an amendment that does not include a manmade feature referred to as the berm or the levee,so the berm is not included in this process. Instead they have submitted the review of the berm as a Technical Revision, a process to which the City strongly objects and an issue which will be appealed by the City. However, what is at issue is that this Board cannot make an informed decision without including a review of the berm and without receiving adequate flood evaluation information. The berm impacts the groundwater contours and the land grade contours - all issues related to the endangered species and other wildlife and wildlife habitat. If this Board acts,they may be jeopardizing the lives and property of hundreds of people,and destroying habitat of endangered species. These are not simple issues and they are intricately intertwined. This Board should reject this application as incomplete and require a new amendment be submitted which combines all the issues together for review." Comment: "...that the State can review only the changes to the berm -- not the entire feature -- as part of its technical review. This position constitutes an unnecessarily narrow view of pre-permit 'grandfathering' principles and undermines the MLRB's important public function in reviewing the hydrologic impacts of proposed reclamation features..." "See C.R.S. 34-32-116(7)(g))....". Comment: "Plainly put, Western Mobile has chosen to make substantial changes to the original berm feature during the life of its reclamation permit. Those changes are clearly subject to the State's review under the permit. Moreover, the hydrologic impact of those changes-- and related issues,such as the stability of the berm and its impacts on internal drainage patterns and anticipated flood flows—cannot be properly analyzed if the State narrowly confines its review to the changes to the berm."