Laserfiche WebLink
19. Objectors' testimony on wildlife also argued that Colorado Parks and <br /> Wildlife had not evaluated the impacts of the full conveyor route, which is included in <br /> other permits, rather than just the portion added by AM-2. <br /> 20. Regarding access agreements that might affect Applicant's legal right of <br /> entry, the Division presented testimony that Applicant had provided lease agreements <br /> and notes from counties that final leases would be provided once the paperwork was <br /> complete. This established Applicant's legal right to enter. <br /> 21. Applicant's testimony stated that they had access from the City of Aurora, <br /> Sakata Farms, Dot and Jim Struck, and Toby Struck. Access farther down the conveyor <br /> line is not relevant to AM-2 because those areas are covered by other permits. Applicant <br /> also stated that an agreement requiring lowering a water line is already a condition of <br /> approval. <br /> 22. The parties also presented testimony regarding geotechnical stability <br /> issues. The Division's testimony established that Applicant had met the requirements by <br /> providing a stability analysis of the conveyor corridor that showed it will not adversely <br /> affect the Challenger Reservoir or buildings in the area. <br /> 23. Applicant's testimony also demonstrated that it had complied with <br /> geotechnical stability requirements. Its "as built" study met both static and seismic <br /> criteria. Vibrations from the conveyors would not affect structures because the conveyors <br /> do not vibrate much and were above clay liners and soil that are not affected by <br /> vibrations. <br /> 24. Objectors argued that the conveyor system would exacerbate stability <br /> issues with the Challenger Reservoir. <br /> 25. The Division recommended approving the permit Application over <br /> objections with the condition that land shall not be affected in Tract L, Tract O and County <br /> Road 23.5 until final crossing designs are approved by the respective County and <br /> documentation of the approval has been submitted to the Division. <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> Act. 26. The Board has jurisdiction over Applicant and this matter pursuant to the <br /> 27. Under section 34-32.5-115(4), C.R.S., "the applicant must comply with the <br /> requirements of this article and section 24-4-105(7), C.R.S." <br /> 28. Under Rule 1.4.1(10), the Applicant"has the burden of demonstrating that <br /> the application meets the minimum requirements of the Act, Rules, and Regulations." <br /> 29. Under Rule 2.8.1(1) and section 24-4-105(7), C.R.S., "the proponent of an <br /> order shall have the burden of proof." As the party initiating this matter by filing the <br /> Aggregate Industries—MR, Inc. <br /> Tucson South Resource/M-2004-044 4 <br />