Laserfiche WebLink
12. Applicant's testimony regarding the mining plan also established that any <br /> excavation necessary for underpasses for the conveyor system under AM-2 was not <br /> mining activity because the materials would not be transported offsite. <br /> 13. Regarding the reclamation plan, the Division's testimony established that <br /> the Applicant is complying with its permit's concurrent reclamation requirements. Portions <br /> of the permitted area that were mined under a previous permit have been partially <br /> reclaimed and will be required to be reclaimed as upland meadow. AM-2 also has a weed <br /> control plan that Applicant will comply with as required. <br /> 14. Applicant's testimony regarding the reclamation plan argued that issues of <br /> reclamation, including adequacy of the plan for the permitted area and concurrent <br /> reclamation, were all dealt with and approved in the original permit application. AM-2 <br /> does not change those requirements nor are they relevant to the Amendment. <br /> 15. Objectors'testimony regarding the reclamation plan asserted that the <br /> portions of the permit boundaries that had been mined under a previous permit should be <br /> prioritized for concurrent reclamation and that Applicant had not controlled weeds in the <br /> past 17 years, mowing only once or twice. Objectors did not, however, articulate issues <br /> with reclamation to be done under AM-2 and the 7.7 acres it would add to the permitted <br /> area, focusing instead on complaints they had with reclamation of the rest of the <br /> permitted area. <br /> 16. Regarding hydrology and wildlife issues, the Division's testimony <br /> established that the Amendment adds a conveyor belt corridor, most of which is above <br /> ground. Where the conveyor belt will cross roads through underpasses, the Division <br /> stated that the underpasses will cause little to no water mounding, thus minimizing <br /> impacts to the surrounding hydrology. The Division's testimony established that Colorado <br /> Parks and Wildlife had not found there to be problems with the Amendment but asked <br /> that the conveyor corridor not be fenced in by Applicant. With Applicant agreeing to that <br /> request, the Division testified that AM-2 complied with wildlife concerns. <br /> 17. Applicant's testimony also addressed hydrology issues, arguing that most of <br /> the Objectors' issues on hydrologic balance pertained to the rest of the permitted area <br /> rather than the 7.7 acres added by AM-2. Applicant also testified that its hydrologic <br /> modeling showed no issues with culverts or underpasses for AM-2. Regarding wildlife, <br /> Applicant said that Colorado Parks and Wildlife had recommended not fencing in the <br /> conveyor corridor, but Weld County wanted some fences. It Applicant installed fences, it <br /> committed to doing so in a way that minimizes impacts on wildlife. <br /> 18. Objectors' testimony on hydrologic balance issues stated that the <br /> Applicant's modeling had not been updated to reflect the current conditions in the area, <br /> including what the current ground water level is. Objectors argued that because of the <br /> Challenger Reservoir and slurry walls in the area, AM-2 needed to be evaluated with <br /> current water levels rather than modeling from the initial permit application. <br /> Aggregate Industries—MR, Inc. <br /> Tucson South Resource/M-2004-W <br />