1997-06-16_REVISION - M1981302 (8)

Home Browse Search

r III 1111111111111111 999 NSA • Natural Science Associates, Inc. 4814 W. Moorhead Cir 0 Boulder, CO 80303 • (303) 499-5014 June 13, 1997 Mr. Harley Ernst, Pre-Hearing Conference Officer The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board RECEIVED c/o Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman St., Rm 215 ! K I c, IAJ 01- JUN 161997 Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. Ernst: Division of Minerals&Geology Based upon the meetings held at DMG on 5/6 and 6/5/97, and upon the written comments submitted by interested parties in File M-81-302, Deepe Farm Pit, I find that the "Issues to Be Considered " that are listed in the Proposed Pre-Hearing Conference Order dated 7th June, 1997 are not full and clear representations of the issues as stated by the parties and accepted by you as appropriate to hear before the Board on June 26, 1997. I request that the following changes to the "Issues to be Considered" should be made to accurately represent the objections made by citizens and the City and County of Boulder: -Issue 1. In fact, the main changes to the berm are included in the Amendment AM-02 map, as shown by the City's analysis of 4/22/97; however, they are not included in the narrative of the Amendment. I find it more accurate to delete ..."and are not now included in the Amendment Application, ..." since the validity of this statement is itself an issue. -Issue 2. 1 believe that the "proposed changes to the berm" refer to the TR. Therefore I would add "... proposed changes to the berm as shown in the TR in conjunction with ...".. - Issue 3. 1 believe that your rules and regulations make the-following a far clearer statement: "Whether the Amendment is technically a good reclamation plan for the stated post- mining use of wildlife habitat and agriculture." Please see Construction Materials Rules and Regulations 3.1.8 (2) and 6A.5 (2) (c), requiring that the Reclamation Plan show how habitat management and creation shall encourage diversity of species and improvement of wildlife habitat. - Issue 4. I would add: "...irrigation flows, including off-site effects that include habitat effects for two Federally protected rare species." - Issue 5. The exposed water surface is not the only issue that was raised concerning suitability of the amendment reclamation plan for the end use of wildlife habitat. An accurate statement would add after ..."exposed water surface and the reclamation plan features that are intended to dry out the permit area, such as the drainage channel, are appropriate to ... Additional issues that were stated verbally and in writing by objecting parties and that you indicated on 6/5/97 could be heard by the Board are: - Issue 7. Whether the Amendment adequately addresses impacts of its land contours (inclyding all features and land shapes shown on the reclamation map) on floodplain management and flood mitigation? - Issue 8. Whether any Amendment or TR should be accepted before flood mitigation studies are completed?