Laserfiche WebLink
5. The Board appointed a preheating conference officer who conducted a preheating <br />conference on October 24, 2004 in Denver, Colorado. The preheating conference officer <br />prepared a proposed preheating order. Parties who appeared at the preheating conference <br />included the Applicant and objectors Wayne Mueller, Michl Lloyd, the Hon. Janice <br />Pawlawski and Marilyn Kent. All other objectors failed to appear, and thereby lost their <br />party status pursuant to Construction Materials Rule 2.7.3(4). <br />6. The Board approved the proposed preheating order as presented. <br />7. The issues set forth in the preheating order are: <br />A. Has the Applicant provided an effective plan for stabilization and protection of the <br />stockpiled material from wind erosion? (Section 34-32.5-116(4)(j)); <br />B. Has the Applicant provided an adequate timetable and map to establish the relationship <br />between mining and reclamation? (Rules 6.4.4(1)(e), 6.4.5(2)(e) and 6.4.6); <br />C. Was the Applicant in violation at the time of application for the 27 acres to be <br />transferred from Permit No. M-1991-140? (Section 34-32.5-120); <br />D. Has the Applicant proposed measures to minimize impacts to the hydrologic balance of <br />the Brattner and Brighton ditches? (Rule 3.1.6(1) and (3)); <br />E. Has the Applicant proposed measures to minimize impacts to the hydrologic balance of <br />Marilyn Kent's water well? (Rule 3.1.6(1}); <br />F. Has the Applicant adequately addressed the requirements for inert fill generated oustide <br />the approved permit area? (Rule 3.1.5(9}). <br />Each of these issues are discussed in greater detail below. <br />