Laserfiche WebLink
OBJECTORS <br />Aquatic and Wetland Company <br />9999 WCR 25 <br />Fort Lupton, CO 80621 <br />Robert and Lavenia Temmer <br />10691 WCR 25 <br />Fort Lupton, CO 80621 <br />Neil and Laura Coyle <br />9046 WCR 25 <br />Fort Lupton, CO 80621 <br />The following objectors did not appear at the pre-hearing conference: Leonard Vazgas, William <br />Gee, William and Linda Piper, Todd and Audrey Schroeder, and Robert and Mary Ellen Stamm. <br />Note: The Division of Minerals and Geology ("Division") shall not be a party, but shall <br />participate in the hearing as staff to the Board. <br />III. ISSUES <br />Presentations to the Boazd shall be limited to the following issues. The parties shall limit <br />presentations to the question of whether the pending application should be approved or denied, <br />based on the issues stated below. <br />1. Has the Applicant proposed measures to minimize impacts to the hydrologic balance in the <br />aquifer beneath the proposed mine site to protect surface vegetation, including nursery stock <br />and wetlands? (Rule 3.1.6) <br />2. Has the Applicant complied with the State Engineer's rules governining injuries to water <br />rights? (Rule 3.1.6) <br />3. Has the Applicant planned to protect wildlife and to protect, rehabilitate and improve wildlife <br />habitat? (Rule 3.1.8) <br />4. Has the Applicant planned to minimize impact to surface water systems within and adjacent <br />to the proposed permit area? (Rule 3.1.6) <br />5. Did the Applicant post notice of the application at the site of the proposed mine of sufficient <br />size and number to cleazly identify the site, providing its name, address and phone number? <br />(Rule1.6.2(1)(b) <br />6. Has the Applicant proposed a plan that complies with state and federal water quality <br />protection laws? (Rule 3.1.6) <br />7. Has the Applicant proposed a plan to strip, stockpile and protect topsoil? (Rule 3.1.9) <br />8. has the Applicant proposed a weed control plan? (Rule 3.1.10(6)) <br />