Laserfiche WebLink
'~ <br />BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />FINDQ~IGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER <br />IN THE MATTER OF WAGNER CONSTRUCTIOPd, THE WAGNER ROCK MINE SITE, FILE <br />NO. M-99-O1S, APPEAL OF DIVISION'S APPRO\'AL OF A 110 PERMIT <br />THIS MATTER having come before the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("the Board") on July 27, <br />1999, for a hearing pursuant to Construction Material Rules and Regulations Rule 1.4.7, the Board <br />makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and enters the following Order: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT AND (:ONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />1. On April 14, 1999, the Division approved Wagner's 110 permit to operate a gravel pit. <br />in Moffat County, Sec. 10, T90W, R6N, 6th P.M. <br />2. On May 13, 1999, the King family, a landowner next to the Wagner site, submitted an <br />objection letter to the 110 permit approval. <br />3. On May 20, 1999, Donna Ashbough-Ilan, a landowner next to the Wagner site, <br />submitted an objection to the 110 permit approval. <br />4. The appeal letters were timely filed pursuant to Rule 1.4.7, and the matter was <br />scheduled for the July 27-28, 1999, Boazd hearings fir consideration of the merits of the appeals. <br />5. At the heazing, the appellants stated tl.at the grounds of their objections were that <br />Wagner had misrepresented the distances and elevation changes between the affected azea and a <br />neazby spring and spring box partially owned and us~:d by the appellants. The appellants indicated <br />concern that Wagner's mining operation would adversely affect the spring and spring box. <br />6. The Boazd determined that the only issues it had the jurisdiction and authority to <br />consider were 1) whether the spring-box is a structur: within 200 feet of the affected area for which <br />adequate assurance of protection had not been provic.ed in the mining and reclamation plan, and 2) <br />whether the operations would affect the quantity or quality of the water available at the spring. <br />7. The spring is located a minimum of 8'75 feet away from the nearest point on the affected <br />land of the Wagner operation, and as such is not a structure within 200 feet of the affected land for <br />which adequate assurance of protection is required ire the mining and reclamation plan. <br />8. There is no evidence of any current or likely future disturbance to the quantity or <br />quality of water at the spring. However, should such a disturbance occur and should it be conclusively <br />proven that the Wagner operations caused the disturt~ance, then the issue may be reopened. <br />