Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1, dated "5/90" (Sheet 1 of 2) included in the May 1990 permit amendment application <br />depicted MPC's proposal for the relocation of the Bull Seep. Exhibit G-1 (Sheet 1 of 2) <br />also included the following note: "[a]djust channel location for the West Bull Seep to <br />minimize disturbance to existing vegetation." Exhibit G-1 (Sheet 2 of 2) contains an <br />additional "General Note 3" which states: "[t]he relocated Bull Seep (west property) <br />shall be field adjusted to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation." (Emphasis <br />added) The 1995 relocation of the Bull Seep was made consistent with the cited <br />Reclamation Plan statements and, more importantly, in a manner consistent with the <br />conservation and wildlife values of the Adams County conservation easement. <br />Prior to the Board's September 1990 issuance of the amended permit, the Urban <br />Drainage and Flood Control District ("UDFCD") provided comments on the proposed <br />location of the Bull Seep as set forth in Exhibit G-1. The location of the Bull Seep <br />depicted on Exhibit G-1 was ultimately revised and dated "8!7/90" consistent with the <br />following correspondence involving the concerned agencies and representatives of <br />MPC: (1) June 15, 1990 Letter from Bill DeGroot, P.E., UDFCD, to Greg Squire, MLRD <br />re: "Howe Pit MLRD File M-78-052"; (2) July 25, 1990 Memorandum from John T. <br />Doerfer, MLRD, to Greg Squire, MLRD re: "Hydrologic Adequacy Review, Howe Pit <br />Amendment, Mobile Premix Concrete, Inc., File No. M-78-052"; (3) August 3, 1990 <br />Letter from Tuttle Applegate, Inc, to John Hickman, Mobile Premix Concrete, Inc. re: <br />"Comments on Adequacy Review, Howe Pit Amendment File No. M-78-052"; and (4) <br />August 14, 1990 Letter from Bill DeGroot, P.E., UDFCD, to John Hickman, Mobile <br />Premix. <br />It is significant that through this exchange the Reclamation Plan map continued <br />to mandate that the alignment of the Bull Seep be adjusted "to minimize disturbance to <br />existing vegetation" and to authorize the field adjustment of the seep to meet this <br />requirement. The present location of the Bull Seep is consistent with the mandates of <br />the Reclamation Plan. Applegate Figure 1-11 clearly demonstrates that the location of <br />the Bull Seep alignment depicted in the Reclamation Plan could not be accomplished <br />absent significant disturbance to cottonwood trees that could serve as eagle roost trees. <br />The present location of the Bull Seep is essentially devoid of cottonwood trees and, for <br />that reason, maintains the recognized conservation and wildlife values to be protected <br />by the conservation easement. <br />While DMG has asserted that MPC has misaligned the Bull Seep and is asking <br />the Board to find a violation of the Reclamation Plan on that basis, MPC believes that <br />the Plan contains conflicting terms and potentially conflicting goals. To the extent MPC <br />may have deviated from the Reclamation Plan, and the company does not concede that <br />it has, it did so to effect and preserve the overriding conservation and wildlife habitat <br />values present on the west side of the Howe/Hailer property that the notes cited on the <br />Reclamation Plan were intended to protect. The allegation in the July 18 Notice should <br />therefore be dismissed and the Board should order DMG and MPC to identify an <br />alignment intended to protect the conservation and wildlife habitat values present on the <br />west side of the Howe/Hailer property as contemplated in the Reclamation Plan. <br />4 <br />