PERMFILE72419 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 25, 2005 • Page 2 December 30, 2004, which the City hereby incorporates for the Division's review. In addition, please consider the attached letters that include the findings of Ms. Fendel and Ms. Larson on behalf of the City, as additional objections to the application. As you will see in greater detail by reviewing the attached letters, Ms. Fendel has provided a thorough evaluation of six areas that fall within the Division's areas of review: water supply, wildlife, dischazge permits, drainage, site restoration, and applicable permits from other governmental entities (specifically Gilpin County and CDOT). Ms. Larson has commented primarily on two aeeas under the Division's jurisdiction: wildlife and site restoration. Notably, Ms. Larson points out that the applicant should be required to conduct (or show proof of having conducted) a threatened and endangered (T&E) species habitat assessment that has been sent to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for written approval. {See page 4 of Ms. Carson's letter.) Also, Ms. Larson identifies fifteen (15) ways in which the restoration plan submitted by the applicant is inadequate or inaccurate. (See pages 2 and 3 of Ms. Carson's letter.) In summary, Ms. Fendel's letter outlines a dozen (12) points on which the Division must deny the application for non-compliance with the MLRB Rules and Acts and lists thirty-six (36) conditions that the City requests be attached to a permit should the Division choose to approve the application despite the identified short fallings. Some the conditions on which the City would insist include, but are not limited to, requiring the applicant to ensure that no injury will occur to the City's water rights by providing, among other things, an estimate of all anticipated water requirements pursuant to MLRB Rules, § 6.4.7(3); by requiring the Division's approval of substitute water supply plan pursuant to MLRB Rules, § 3.1.6(1)(a); and by requiring the applicant to develop a ground water monitoring program to ensure that groundwater quality is undisturbed by mining operations pursuant to MLRB Rules, § 3.1.7(7). The City wishes to emphasize that, as identified in Section VI. and VII. of Ms. Fendel's letter, and as confirmed by the letter dated May 20, 2005, from Mr. James Petrock, Gilpin County Attorney, that was submitted to the Division regarding this application, the applicant has not "applied for all necessary approvals form local governments" as required by MLRB Rules, § 1.4.1(5)(d). In fact, the applicant has neither applied to the County for the Special Use Review Permit required for mining, milling, or rock crushing activities or for the CDOT state highway access permit, which the County oow has the authority to issue pursuant to C.C.R. 601-1, § 2.3(1). Accordingly, for all of the reasons identified above and in the attached letters, the City respectfully submits that good cause exists to hold a hearing on the amended application and requests that the Board deny the amended application as incomplete and as proposing a mining operation that is contrary to federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The City remains strenuously opposed to the amended application, requests a hearing • thereon, believes the amended application cannot be approved according the MLRB's own rules srzsms Q:IUSERSIBHIHMGIMINING APPLICATIOMOB/ECT/ON LE77ER - L01.DOC