PERMFILE40271 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 12, 2005 Page 5 Division's explicit instructions contained in its April I1, 2005, letter that read: "...the applicant is required to re-publish and re-notice in accordance with procedures outlined in Rule 1.6 and specified in the Division's November 9, 2004, correspondence." See Division letter dated April 11, 2005. Therefore, the applicant has not satisfied CMR 1.4.5(3) or CMR 1.6.2(1)(g), which require compliance with all notice requirements and the filing of proof of all required notices before the decision date. 6. Exposure of groundwater. The initial response from the Office of the State Engineer, dated November 16, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, stated: "The proposed operation does not anticipate exposing ground water." However, as stated in applicant's geotechnical engineering report submitted by Banks and Gesso and prepared by Lyman Henn, Inc., "The data indicate that groundwater will probably be encountered during mining at a dept of 60 to 100 ft below the ground surface." See p. 4 of Lyman Henn, Inc., report, attached to applicant's August 19, 2005, response. At the same page, it is stated: " ... [T]he quarry excavation will extend 250 to 290 ft into the groundwater. The quarry will effectively become a large diameter well with a maximum drawdown of approximately 290 ft." The report goes on to state that the exposed groundwater "will dissipate and evaporate upon daylighting from the fractures." This new information concerning the exposure of groundwater to evaporation must be provided to the Office of the State Engineer so that it may revise its response to the 112 permit application. The State Engineer may and likely will require that the applicant provide a substitute supply plan or decreed plan of augmentation before it issues a gravel pit or other type of well permit for this project. 7. Local government approval. Contrary to the applicant's argument, it is mandatory that the applicant apply for the requisite County SUR permit and CDOT highway access permit before the regular 112 permit may be granted because CMR 1.4.5(1) makes all requirements set forth in 1.4.1 expressly applicable to regular 112 permits. Rule 1.4.1(5)(d), CMR, requires that an applicant "has applied for all necessary approvals from local governments." (Emphasis added.) Rule 1.4.5(1), CMR, makes that provision applicable to regular l l2 permits by stating, "All general application requirements outlined in Subsection 1.4.1 shall be required fora 112 Reclamation Permit Application. Thus, the Division has, by rule, made it a requirement that regular 112 permit applications at the very least apply for all necessary approvals from local governments. 9/!2/05 Q: I USERSIBHIHMGIM/N/NG APPL/CAT/OMOBJECT/ON LETTER - L03.DOC