PERMFILE47333 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Tom Schreiner October 24, 2005 Page 4 during certain event conditions. It is not likely to have a process water or groundwater discharge. No discharge exists now, and the project will not discharge on a routine basis, so a regulaz § 302 permit is not appropriate. The Applicant stated in its August 19, 2005 response to adequacy review that it believed the applicable permit, if any is required, would be a General Permit COG-500000, which requires application at least thirty days prior to an anticipated discharge. Until the mining and reclamation plans are finalized and approved, there is no necessity for a permit. 3. Inadequacy of Lyman Henn Geotechnical Evaluation. In this section of its letter, the City of Black Hawk again asserts procedural objections that it has no standing to make, as there is no interest of the City that is affected by this project. The Applicant has responded to the DMG's September 9, 2005 adequacy review comment concerning blasting vibration prediction and monitoring, and has selected one of the compliance options set forth in that letter. This issue is more fully developed in the letter dated October 24, 2005 from Banks and Gesso. 4. Notice to Property Owners The City of Black Hawk is not a property owner entitled to notice, and therefore has no basis on which to make this objection. The City of Black Hawk, seeking to represent the Silver Dollar Metro District, alleges that the latter has an interest in light poles and power infrastructure within 200 feet of the Project property line, and did not receive notice or an offer of an agreement. Silver Dollar has never made such a claim for itself. Silver Dollar is not an "Owner of record of ... land surface within 200 feet of the Affected Lands," CMR § 1.6.2(3)(ii), and has never recorded an interest in its fixtures. CCDWP was not obligated by the regulations to provide individualized notice to it. Further, Silver Dollar Metro District received actual notice of the proposed project and filed a letter on December 28, 2004, objecting on the basis of its concerns about traffic, but not mentioning any concerns about its light fixtures. Black Hawk cannot bring an objection that it has no right to make, and Silver Dollar has waived any objection it may make on the basis of the light poles. Notwithstanding, CCDWP has provided notice to Silver Dollar, proffered an agreement concerning its light fixtures, and submitted an engineering report showing that there will be no damage to the light poles from the project. 5. Republish and Re-notice Requirements. CCDWP has confirmed that all public notice requirements, per Rules 1.6.2, 1.6.5 and 1.6.6 have been met, in conformance with DMG's adequacy review comments. This issue is more fully developed in the letter dated October 24, 2005, from Banks and Gesso.