Laserfiche WebLink
EXHIBIT 29 <br /> 1 <br /> ' 11. On September 26,2016,the Division issued a written recommendation to <br /> approve AM-01 over objections and a written rationale for that recommendation. <br /> ' 12. On October 3,2016,the Board,through a prehearing conference officer, <br /> conducted a prehearing conference. Representatives of Equity Funding,LLC and the City of <br /> Thornton participated in the prehearing conference. Objectors Keith and Shirl Sabin did <br /> ' not attend the prehearing conference. The prehearing officer issued a draft prehearing <br /> order and distributed it to the parties. Among other things,the draft prehearing order <br /> identified two categories of issues for the parties to present to the Board for consideration. <br /> ' 13. On October 5,2016,the Applicant'filed a aispositive Motion Regarding Non- <br /> jurisdictional Issues and to Limit Evidence at Hearing("Applicant's Motion"). On or about <br /> October 20,201f,Objector Equity Funding,UCPled its response to Applicant's Motion. <br /> 14. The City of Thornton withdrew as a party to this matter on October 25,2016. <br /> 15. At the hearing,the Board considered Applicant's Motion, Equity Funding, <br /> LLC's response thereto,and received oral argument from the Applicant,Equity Funding, <br /> LLC,and the Division. The Board granted Applicant's Motion. <br /> 26. At the hearing,the Board considered the draft gxehrearieg order and invited <br /> amendments or adjustments to be proposed by the parties. The Applicant,through <br /> counsel,requested changes to the prehearing order in light of the withdrawal of the City <br /> 1 of Thornton as a party and the Board's ruling on Applicant's Motion. Equity Funding,LLC <br /> did not object to the Applicant's proposed changes. The Board adopted the.draft <br /> prehearing order,as amended,as the final prehearing order. <br /> 17. At the hearing,Eric Scott of the Division itestified that,under AM-01,the <br /> Applicant would place the invert(inlet) elevation of the drain (located adjacent to <br /> ' monitoring well MW-2) at an elevation of 5036.5 feet,which is more than two feet below <br /> the elevation of the current drain installed as part of the Temporary Plan. Mr.Scott <br /> testified that the permanent drain is intended to lower groundwater levels in the area to <br /> approximate pre-slurry wall levels while still allowing for positive drainage into the <br /> completed reservoir at its design high-water elevation of 5036.0 feet. Mr.Scott testified <br /> that the proposed drain invert elevation is also below the average pre-mining groundwater <br /> levels in monitoring wells MW-3 and MW11B,and within 0.54 feet of the pre-slurry wall <br /> ' average groundwater elevation in monitoring well MW-2. Mr.Scott testified that it is the <br /> Division's opinion that the existing monitoring locations and protocol,which have been in <br /> place since early 2004 and provided sufficient data to substantiate the groundwater <br /> ' mounding issue,wffprovide adequate data to veritify whether the drains perform <br /> adequately and minimize impact to the prevailing hydrologic balance. <br /> ' 18. Tom Hesemann of Tetra Tech,Inc. ("Mr.Hesemann")testified at the hearing <br /> on behalf of the Applicant Mr.Hesemann testified that the measured flows indicated that <br /> i the drain necessary to lower water level around the site must be capable of accommodating <br /> Aggregate Industries-WM Inc. <br /> ' M-2004-031 3 <br />