Laserfiche WebLink
revegetation as required by the Construction Materials Rules. Aspects of the <br />reclamation plan not adequately covered by the bond amount include, but aze not <br />limited to, the actual current cost to provide a reasonable density of trees and <br />shrubs; the quantity of topsoil shown in Applicant's own reclamation plan; <br />sufficient water for reestablishment of vegetation after mining; sufficient soil <br />amendments and preparation to accomplish Applicant's own reclamation plan; <br />and monitoring for a minimum period of time necessary to determine whether <br />revegetation has been established. <br />G. Contrary to law, without support of substantial evidence in the record, and <br />with significant credible evidence to the contrary, the MLRB en•oneously <br />concluded that the MMRR Quarry Application's potential impact on waters of the <br />United States would not require notice to the Army Corp of Engineers or a Cleaz <br />Water Act Permit based on the conclusion that there were no indicators of <br />wetlands on the property and, therefore, no waters of the United States on the <br />property. See Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order, pazagraph 37. On <br />the contrary, by definition, waters of the United States include waters other than <br />jurisdictional wetlands. It was in excess of the MLRB's authority to approve the <br />application without fully exploring the MMRR Quarry Application's potential <br />impact on waters of the United States, as correctly defined, and the Application <br />may be incomplete if any permits, licenses, or approvals aze required by C.M.R. <br />6.4.13 in light of the Application's potential impact on waters of the United <br />States. <br />WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request this Court order designation and certification of all <br />portions of the record; and that this Court thereafter hold unlawful and set aside the MLRB's <br />approval of the MMRR Quarry Application, restrain the implementation of the approved <br />application, and remand this case for further proceedings. <br />DATED this ~~day of Febrrrary; 2006.-- <br />HAYES, PHILLIPS, HOFFMANN <br />& CARBERRY, P.C. <br />By: ~ /~ <br />Cor y Y. Hoffmann <br />Hilary Mogue Graham <br />ATTORNEYS FOR CITY OF BLACK <br />HAWK, COLORADO <br />6 <br />3/1/06 <br />Q:I USERSIBHV/MGIMIN/NG APPLICAT/ON-MMRR QUARRYIAPPEALICOMPLAINT-FINAL-1.DOC <br />