2008-08-13_PERMIT FILE - M2008037

Home Browse Search

Aug, 13. 2008 2:42PM CLEAR CREEK LAND USE No, 1383 P. 2 Creek Watershed Foundation. We have adopted and enforce individual Sewage Disposal System and Best Management Practices regulations that exceed those of other jurisdictions in the state. We believe that requirements of DRMS support our goals and desire that your agency assure the protection of this vital resource. We are relying on your expertise and attention to detail when you examine this proposal and require that it meet the standards established by law. Assumptions not clearly supported in the application It appears that this application is based upon assumptions that the tailings slurry disposal sites in the Garland shaft are appropriately designed and constructed, that the lab reports - some as old as 1993 and from locations other than the Emma - accurately characterize the materials and the water that this proposal involves. We would request that the application provide supporting documentation for these assumptions. Documentary Concerns Our other concerns are documentary in nature and we believe they can be addressed through additional supporting reports or documents. 1. Legal Authority for signatures on this application. The application does not demonstrate authority for submittal to the standard that would be accepted in Clear Creek County. Because the activity will be conducted by a corporation, we would be looking for corporate documents granting authority to Mr. McHale. Clear Creek County would be quite particular about the documentation because we have experienced legal challenges to land use applications that were granted without having corporate authorizing documents in the file. Documents we would require might include corporate resolutions granting authority to art. The application did not contain any form of authority for Mr. McHale, 2. Exhibit B - Mapping and ownership issues. Exhibit B identifies mining claims that appear to conflict with the Emma - with some of those claims having lower Mineral Survey numbers. Clear Creek County would request a determination from the 13LM office verifying which claims have precedence in the area of proposed activity. In addition, our County Assessor records, although not survey accurate, seem to indicate a slightly different boundary for the MS 6556 Comstock in relation to the MS 7261 Emma. I am attaching the ,Assessor's printout for your reference. 3. Conversion from 110d to 110(2) Mule 1.11.2(4) indicates that the applicant is required to demonstrate that three requirements have been met: "4) When an Operator is requesting a conversion from a Designated Mining Operation to a Non-designated Mining Operation, the application shall include a demonstration, satisfactory to the Office, that: (a) no designated chemical(s) are on-site; (b) any toxic or acidic residue, waste, contaminated containment systems from such chemicals have been removed or detoxified sufficiently to meet any applicable state or federal environmental compliance standards; and (c) acid mine drainage and toxic or acid-forming materials have been handled according to the requirements of the Environmental