My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE112097
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE112097
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:08:32 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 9:09:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004067
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/7/2005
Doc Name
Response in Opposition- to City of Black Hawk
From
Christopher G. Hayes PC
To
DMG
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.
/
8
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
monitor each quarry development and production blast. Seismograph <br />records must be retained for at least 3 years and be available for inspection <br />by the DMG on demand. Continued access to the Waste Water Treatment <br />Plant by the Operator is necessary for compliance with this permit <br />condition; if the owner(s) of the Plan[ deny the Operator's access at any <br />reasonable time for the purpose of seismographic monitoring, the <br />requirement to comply with this permit condition shalt be re-evaluated by <br />the Division through submittal of a technical revision by the Operator.' <br />15. Given this record and this stipulation, the Board should reject Proposed Condition <br />5 as not justified by the record. <br />PROPOSED CONDITION 6: REQUEST FOR APPLICANT TO <br />IMPROVE EXISTING CONDITION OF LAND AS PART OF <br />POST-MINING RECLAMATION <br />16. The proposed condition is unwarranted and arbitrary. The need for it is not <br />supported by evidence in [he record. <br />17. The Applicant has submitted a reclamation plan [hat fully complies with the <br />requirements of the statute and implementing regulations. The Board should approve the <br />Applicant's plan and reject the objector's contrary p]an requiring substantial improvement of the <br />affected land. <br />18. The Applicant has already surveyed the affected lands for jurisdictional wetlands. <br />As explained in the Application, no jurisdictional wetlands exist on the affected lands. Any <br />evidence to the contrary submitted at the hearing will be contested and refuted. <br />19. As no jurisdictional wetlands exist on these lands, this condition should not be <br />imposed, If the Corps of Engineers later identifies or defines certain lands as wetlands, the <br />Applicant has pledged to obtain a petmit if the Corps of Engineers deems one to be necessary. <br />20. For these reasons, the proposed condition should be rejected. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.