Laserfiche WebLink
II. ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTING PARTIES DURING THE INITIAL <br />COMMENT PERIOD: <br />Issues raised by objecting parties are listed below, along with the names of the objectors. The <br />Division's response to objection issues follows. Issues are listed under the section of the Hard <br />Rock/Metals Rules and Regulations to which they pertain. <br />ISSUES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD <br />1. Rule 6.4.7 Exhibit G - Water Information <br />• In the October 13, 2010 letter, all objectors listed "expressed their concerns about the <br />potential adverse water quality and water quality impacts of the proposed amendment to the <br />Climax Mine permit", and requested party status and the opportunity to be heard by the <br />Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB). No specifics were given as to what proposed <br />modifications or activities contained in AM-06 they felt would adversely impact their <br />interests, or what protective measures they would like to see implemented. <br />• In the July 8, 2020 letter, the Eagle Park Reservoir Company expressed concerns over; <br />"modification of terrain in the drainage above Eagle Park Reservoir that impact water yield <br />and quality", "modifications that impact water supply in and to ditches that supply Eagle <br />Park Reservoir", and "modifications that impact movement and quality of groundwater that <br />is tributary to Eagle Park Reservoir". No specifics were given as to what proposed <br />modifications or activities contained in AM-06 they felt would adversely impact their <br />interests, or what protective measures they would like to see implemented. <br />• In the July 8, 2010 letter, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and Upper Eagle <br />River Regional Water Authority, as shareholders in the Eagle Park Reservoir Company, <br />expressed concern that they "may be directly and adversely impacted by the proposed mining <br />activities, including adverse impacts to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected <br />lands and surrounding area, and to the quantity and quality of surface and groundwater." No <br />specifics were given as to what proposed modifications or activities contained in AM-06 <br />they felt would adversely impact their interests, or what protective measures they would like <br />to see implemented. <br />• In the July 8, 2010 letter, the Clinton Ditch and Reservoir Company expressed concerns <br />over; "modification of terrain in the Clinton Creek drainage might impact water yield and <br />water quality", and "mining activities may adversely impact the movement and quality of <br />groundwater that is tributary to Clinton Gulch Reservoir". No specifics were given as to <br />what proposed modifications or activities contained in AM-06 they felt would adversely <br />impact their interests, or what protective measures they would like to see implemented. <br />DRMS Response <br />The concern raised by the above comment is related to C.R.S. 34-32-116(7)(g) and to Rule 6.4.7 of <br />the Hard Rock/Metal Mining Rule which requires the Applicant to state expectations of the <br />operation's direct effects to surface or groundwater systems. Rule 3.1.6 (1) also applies. This rule <br />requires that disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land and of the <br />2