PERMFILE72419

• Permit No: M2004067
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 11/21/2005
• Doc Name: Exhibit 156
• From: City of Black Hawk
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Mr. Tom Schreiner
May 25, 2005
Page 8
• The attached construction drawing C-2B shows two sedimentation ponds labeled as
sedimentation pond B. One of the sedimentation ponds labeled "B" is labeled with a
capacity of 220,000 ft3, and the other pond labeled "B" does not show a design capacity.
• On drawing C-2B, sedimentation pond C is labeled as permanent and appears from the
construction drawing to be smaller than sedimentation pond B, which is contradictory to the
values for the ponds shown in the table on the drawing.
• A statement on page 13 of the Response to Adequacy Review, "A permanent sedimentation
basin, referenced as Sediment Pond C in the initial drawings and the DMG adequacy review
letter, has been removed from the reclamation plan" is inconsistent with the Revised Exhibit
C-2C which shows the permanent Sediment Pond C.
• The McDerrnid memorandum (page 2) indicates historic peak flows from the 100.year event
in each of the basins are 81 cfs {West Basin),166 cfs (East Basin), and 55 cfs {South Basin).
None of the revised exhibits delineate basin boundaries. None of the sedimentation ponds
appeaz capable of handling these storm event flows.
Additionally, Segment 13(b) of the North Fork, to which the ponds will dischazge, is currently listed
by the State Water Quality Control Commission due to concerns over aquatic life. The information
• provided is inadequate to determine if the ponds are designed and sized to prevent off-site erosion
that may impact downstream aquatic life.
The information is also inadequate to determine if the diversion channels will adequately handle the
stormwater flows to be bypassed.
There is a concern that the fuel, oil, and used petroleum products to bestored on-site will pollute the
water quality of the runoff water. The information provided is inadequate to determine if sufficient
containment measures aze in place to ensure compliance with the oil and grease discharge limits of
the CDPS permit.
The permit should be denied because:
• The applicant's incomplete and contradictory information ondrawing C-2B is a violation of
NLRB Rule § 1.4.1(3).
• 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 NLRB Rule §6.3.12.
If the permit is approved, Black Hawk requests the following conditions in the permit to ensure the
• runoff management plan is consistent with water quality dischazge permit requirements NLRB
Rules, §6.4.7(c), the applicant complies with applicable water quality standards (NLRB Rules,
§3.1.6(6)), and no injury occurs to Black Hawk's water rights (NLRB Rules, §3.1.6(1)(a)):
/~ LEONARD RICE ENGINEERS INC.