Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Slough and discharge to the South Platte River downstream of the Brantner diversion <br />structure, as they have historically. <br />Several months prior to the Board's September 1990 approval of the amended <br />Permit M-1978-052, the Adams County Board of County Commissioners approved on <br />May 21, 1990 Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") Case No. 12-90-C. Subsequent to the <br />completion of the CUP process, MPC offered, of its own accord, Adams County a <br />conservation easement along the South Platte River on the western portion of the <br />Howe/Halter property. MPC understands that the conservation easement was the first <br />of its kind in Adams County. The portion of the Howe/Halter property subject to the <br />easement is generally recognized as having significant conservation and wildlife habitat <br />values as a communal eagles roost. Adams County will ultimately construct a walking <br />trail on the conservation easement as part of the South Platte River Trail. <br />II. July 18, 2001 Notice to Reason to Believe Violation Exists <br />After an inspection of certain portions of the Bull Seep made by DMG staff on <br />July 5, 2001, DMG issued a Notice of Reason to Believe Violation Exists on July 18, <br />2001 ("July 18 Notice"). The Notice alleges that the Bull Seep was not located as <br />provided in the approved Reclamation Plan. The Notice alleges that the present <br />location of the Bull Seep comprises a violation of C.R.S. § 34-32.5-116(1) of the <br />Construction Materials reclamation statute, which provides: "[e]very operator to whom a <br />permit is issued pursuant to this article shall perform the reclamation prescribed by the <br />reclamation plan adopted pursuant to this section." <br />MPC herein denies the allegation set forth in the July 18 Notice. Other than the <br />fact that DMG staff inspected certain portions of the Bull Seep on July 5, 2001, and <br />certain representatives of MPC accompanied DMG staff during the inspection, MPC <br />also denies, unless otherwise indicated herein, the statements contained in the <br />"Observations' and "Problems/Possible Violations" portions of the July 5, 2001 DMG <br />inspection report. <br />A. The Reclamation Plan Contains Conflicting Terms; MPC Located the <br />Bull Seep in a Manner Consistent with the Protection of Wildlife and <br />Conservation Values Established in the Conservation Easement. <br />Exhibit D to the permit amendment application filed by MPC with the then Mined <br />Land Reclamation Division in May 1990, entitled "Mining Plan and Timetable," indicates <br />that the Bull Seep would be relocated prior to mining Stage 4. The statement was <br />included in the operations timetable since the historic routing of the Bull Seep traversed <br />the Stage 4 area. Exhibit E to the application, entitled "Reclamation," further clarified <br />that: "[p]rior to the excavation in stage 4 the Bull Seep will be routed around the south <br />and west sides of the property.... " <br />Operations in Stage 4 commenced in 1995. The Bull Seep was relocated prior to <br />mining in Stage 4. See Applegate Figure 1-1. The Reclamation Map labeled Exhibit G- <br />3 <br />