My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE123157
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE123157
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:20:59 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 11:12:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004067
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
11/22/2005
Doc Name
Pre-Hearing Order
From
Sandy Brown (DMG)
To
Parties to Board Hearing
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
+~ <br />10. Has the Applicant provided an adequate description of the reclamation plan to <br />demonstrate it can achieve the post-mining Land use of "wildlife habitat" with respect to <br />revegetation? (Rules 3.1.10 and 6.4.5 -Reclamation Plan) <br />11, Has the Applicant provided a plan describing the methods to be employed for weed <br />control? (Rule 3.1.10(6)) <br />12. Has the Applicant adequately described vegetation resources with respect to the <br />relationship of present vegetation types to soil types? An objector questioned whether <br />wetland azeas were identified and/or delineated. (Rule 6.4.10 -Exhibit J) <br />13. Has the Applicant provided an adequate estimate of the reclamation cost required to <br />complete the reclamation plan and achieve the desired post-mining land use of wildlife <br />habitat with respect to the revegetation costs? (Rule 6.4.12 -Exhibit L) <br />14. Has the Applicant provided a statement identifying which permits, licenses, and <br />approvals it will seek to conduct the proposed mining and reclamation operations? <br />Specifically at issue is the Gilpin County Special Use Review (SUR) Permit. Two other <br />county permits of concern were identified at the Pre-hearing conference, the Individual <br />Sewage Disposal System Permit and the Grading Permit for roads. (Rule 6.4.13- Exhibit <br />M) <br />ISSUES OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD <br />Issues I'AICPIt that aze.not_within the scope of_the_Construction Materials A_ct are as follows: noise <br />dust control, property values, truck traffic, and economic impact. <br />IV. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS <br />Pursuant to Construction Materials Rule 2.6(2), all parties must exchange witness and exhibits <br />information as set forth below at the Pre-hearing conference. <br />Parties must make a list identifying all witnesses that each may call to testify during the hearing. <br />Identify each witness by name, address, phone number, azea of expertise (if any) and subject(s) of <br />proposed testimony. You are not obligated to call every witness on your list. However, if you <br />fail to identify a potential witness, that witness' testimony may be excluded on that basis. <br />Parties must also make a list identifying all exhibits they intend to offer to the Board. If a party <br />intends to introduce exhibits that are not already part of the agency record, that party must <br />identify such exhibits on the party's exhibits list and provide a copy of the exhibit to all other <br />parties and the DMG. The only exception is for records that cannot be practically reproduced. If <br />a party intends to offer an exhibit that is not part the agency record and cannot be practically <br />reproduced, identify it as such on your exhibits list. In that event, you must make it available for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.