My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE43364
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE43364
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:45:50 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 11:33:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2005080
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/16/2006
Doc Name
Opposition to Objectors Motion
From
Attorneys for Allen
To
DRMS
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.
/
15
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
36, 38 and 42). The Boazd's Rules expressly contemplate this process and acknowledge that a <br />permit applicant may need to provide additional information to the Division "for the purpose of <br />detailing, clarifying or explaining any part of the application." Rule 1.8.1(4). In these <br />circumstances, the additional information provided by Allen does not require an amendment or <br />technical revision to the original application. Id. Thus, the Board's Rules acknowledge the exact <br />process that the Division undertook in reviewing a x~l requesting additional information <br />concerning Allen's application. Objectors are flatly wrong in suggesting that the additional <br />information provided by Allen and evaluated by the Division should not be considered in <br />determining whether Allen's application was complete. Moreover, after undertaking its <br />thorough review, the Division found that Allen's application satisfied all adequacy requirements <br />and recommended its approval. See May 5, 2006 Rationale for Approval Over Objections, <br />revised June 2, 2006 (Exhibits 50, 56). <br />3. Allen Has Provided All Necessary Information On The Estimated Source And <br />Quantity Of Water For Its Proposed Mining Operations. <br />Objectors incorrectly contend that Allen failed to identify the source of water supply for <br />the proposed mining operations and provide an estimate of the volumes that will be utilized in <br />accordance with Rules 6.4.7(3) and 6.4.7(4). Exhibit G to Allen's application explained that the <br />proposed operation will not expose groundwater, but that water will be used for operations. In <br />response to the Division's first adequacy review, Allen provided correspondence from Gary B. <br />Thompson of W.W. Wheeler and Associates detailing the estimated project water needs See <br />Exhibit 35. Mr. Thompson stated that the estimated annual water requirement for the project is <br />approximately 3.0 acre-feet with approximately 1.65 acre-feet being consumed by evaporative <br />loss. Mr. Thompson explained that an on-site well will be used to supply this water, which will <br />be operated for short periods of time each day and will pump at a maximum flow rate of 50 <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.