Laserfiche WebLink
Rationale for Recommendation to Approve <br />Page 13 <br />September 26, 2016 <br />Issues Raised by the Objecting Parties and Commenting Agencies <br />The issues raised by the objecting parties and commenting agencies are represented by italic bold <br />font. The last names of the objecting parties who raised the issue are listed after the issue. The <br />Division's response follows in standard font. <br />1. Concerns regar•rling prolatged ntiltiiig activiv acrd associated drtst, troise polltttion, <br />and visual impact to surrounding property,. (Sabin —first commentperiod) <br />In these proceedings, the Division's jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the specific <br />requirements of the Act and Rules. The Division considers all timely submitted comments in its <br />review, but can address only the issues which directly relate to the specific requirements of an <br />application as stated in the Act and Rules. <br />The Act and Rules do not specifically address issues of zoning and land use, impacts to visually <br />appealing landscapes, hours and/or days of operation, noise and sight pollution, and duality of <br />life. Such issues are typically addressed at the local government level and not at the State <br />government level. These issues should be addressed through the Adams County permitting <br />process. On December 31, 2015 and September 1, 2016, the Division provided notice of AM -01 <br />to Adams County. Adams County has not indicated any conflict with local zoning or regulations <br />for the proposed mine operation. <br />The Act and Rules do not authorize the Division to regulate air pollution (dust) issues. Please <br />direct concerns for air pollution to the Air Pollution Control Division with the Colorado <br />Department of Public Health and Environment. <br />Pursuant to Section 34-32.5-103(l 1) C.R.S., the life of mine may extend indefinitely as long as <br />the operation is conducted in accordance with the conditions of the approved permit and the Act <br />and Rules. Therefore, the Division cannot deny AM -01 based on the length of time necessary to <br />complete the extraction and reclamation processes described within the approved permit and <br />required by the Act and Rules. <br />2. Concerns regarding the anrendment/operation being in compliance with applicable <br />water riglits requirements Comment that additional leak testing of slurry ivall may <br />be required by SEO. (City of Thor ton, DWR) <br />Pursuant to Section 34-32.5-116(4)(h) C.R.S., and Rule 3.1.6(l)(a), the application must <br />demonstrate compliance with applicable Colorado water laws and regulations governing injury <br />to existing water rights. <br />On December 31, 2015 and September 1, 2016, the Division provided notice of AM -01 to the <br />State Engineer's Office Division of Water Resources (DWR). DWR is the regulating authority <br />for water rights in Colorado. DWR responded to both of the Division's notices with conditions <br />