PERMFILE45544 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Tom Schreiner May 25, 2005 Page 13 7. The applicant's failure to obtain the Special Use Review Permit is a violation ofMLRB Rule §1.4.1(3). 8. The information provided is inadequate to determine if sufficient containment measures are in place to ensure compliance with the oil and grease discharge limits of the CDPS permit. 9. The applicant's failure to obtain the Special Use Review Permit is a violation ofMLRB Rule §1.4.1(3). 10. The applicant's failure to point out that the CDOT access permit has expired is a violation of MLRB Rule §1.4.1(3). 11. The applicant's incomplete and contradictory information on drawing C-2B is a violation of MLRB Rule §1.4.1(3). 12. The applicant's failure to provide a notarized letter from the BHCCSD stating there will be "no negative effect" on their utility, or provide a notarized agreement with BHCCSD for compensation for damage to the sewer line is a violation of MLRB Rule §6.3.12. Should the Board elect to approve the applicant's reclamation permit, Black Hawk requests the following conditions be included in the approval: 1. The applicant must identify the source(s) of water to be used for the mining operations (e.g., dust control, imgation water). Water pumped out of Clear Creek orNorth Cleaz Creek into a tanker truck without a valid, in priority, water right will injure Black Hawk's water rights. The MLRB Rules specifically require the applicant to identify the specific source(s) ofwater and the quantity to be obtained from each source in order to meet the project's anticipated water requirements (MLRB Rules, §6.4.7(4)). 2. The applicant must provide an estimate of all anticipated water requirements -including flow rates and annual volumes -for each phase of the project, including, but not limited to, development, mining, and reclamation (MLRB Rules, §6.4.7(3)). The application merely states that the daily water requirement is estimated to be 30,000 gallons per day (Application, page 17, Exhibit G -Water Information). It is unclear whether the 30,000 gpd estimate is solely for dust control, or includes imgation water as well. If not, the estimate should be revised to include irrigation requirements. Also, although required by MLRB Rules, annual water demand volumes are not provided. 3. Use or evaporation of water exposed during mining operations will consume native water supplies tributary to North Clear Creek and injure existing water rights. Therefore, the permit should include language that any water exposed as a consequence ofmining cannot be used for mining operations, or stored, without a substitute water supplyplan approved by the Division of Water Resources (MLRB Rules, §3.1.6(1)(a)). 4. The permit should include language that al] waters conveyed via these drainage diversions may not be used as part of the mining operation. ~C LEONARD RICE ENGINEERS, INC.