Laserfiche WebLink
2. The Division received timely objections from Karen Topper, Steve and Margaret <br />Davis, and Douglas and Phyllis Hackett. Steve and Mazgazet Davis did not appeaz for <br />the preheatng conference and therefore lost their party status in accordance with <br />Construction Materials Rule 2.7.3(4). Douglas and Phyllis Hackett withdrew their <br />objection. <br />3. The Board appointed a preheating conference officer who conducted a preheating <br />conference on May 27, 2003 in Denver, Colorado, and prepared a proposed <br />preheating order. <br />4. The Board modified the proposed preheating order to correct a citation to the rule in <br />the first issue listed under Secrion III, Issues To Be Considered. The Boazd then <br />adopted the modified preheazing order after having heazd no objections from the <br />parties. <br />5. The Board has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case <br />pursuant to C.R.S. § 34-32.5-114. <br />6. The Division recommends approval of this application with one condition, set forth <br />below. <br />The issues set forth in the preheating order aze: <br />A) Is the application accurate and consistent regarding the description of the <br />topsoil stockpiles? <br />B) Will the applicant comply with applicable water laws and regulations <br />governing injury to existing water rights specifically a potential lowering of the <br />water table? <br />C) Has the applicant submitted a statement or plan showing how de-watering <br />operations will be managed to protect against pollution, specifically <br />remobilization of DIMP? <br />D) Has the applicant identified all structures within 200 feet of the affected <br />area? <br />E) Has the applicant provided a notarized agreement with the Toppers, or an <br />appropriate engineering evaluation that demonstrates the structures will not be <br />damaged by mining activities? <br />