Laserfiche WebLink
MMRR Quarry, M-2004-067 <br />Response to June 30 Adequacy Review (as amended) <br />August 19, 2005 <br />Page 20 <br />any burden on applicants to correct DMG forms or go outside the well-defined <br />administrative process. <br />Even in the unlikely event that Rule 1.4.1(5)(d) is an applicant duty, with the <br />extrastatutory meaning ascribed to it, it has no bearing on the sufficiency of <br />Exhibit M, as described by Rule 6.4.13. <br />To address the Division's question regarding both Gilpin County Special Use <br />Review and a State Highway Access Permit, the applicant has stated from the <br />beginning of this process that the proposed quarry operation may require the <br />applicant to seek these approvals. At this time we are actively seeking an <br />access permit (see discussion in Technical Revision to Plans, above). We are <br />also reviewing the mining regulations supplied by Gilpin County to determine how <br />those regulations affect the proposed quarry. If it is determined that the proposal <br />is subject to Gilpin County mining regulations, the applicant will apply for and <br />obtain a Gilpin County Special Use Review prior to initiating mining activities. <br />42. In conformance with Rule 6.4.13, please provide a statement identifying which permits, <br />licenses and approvals the Applicant holds or will be seeking in order to conduct the proposed <br />mining and reclamation operations. <br />The applicant has been in compliance with Rule 6.4.13 from the time of the <br />November 2004 submittal. In addition, the technical adequacy of Exhibit M was <br />specifically addressed in the first adequacy response of March 23, 2005, at which <br />time we noted that the original submittal document conforms to the requirements <br />of Rule 6.4.13. <br />In fact, for the sake of completeness and disclosure, the November 2004 <br />document notes the potential involvement of agencies that may or may not be <br />required. The jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers very likely does <br />not extend to the two ephemeral drainages, but the applicant commits to <br />reviewing a plan with the agency to ensure that any impacts within the scope of <br />404 Permitting are addressed. The Colorado Historical Society has no regulatory <br />jurisdiction over any artifacts previously inventoried near the site, nor are any <br />artifacts known to exist on the proposed quarry site. The applicant nonetheless <br />commits to notifying the State Historic Preservation Officer if artifacts of possible <br />historical and/or cultural significance are encountered at the site. <br />Based on current analysis of groundwater hydrology in the vicinity of the <br />proposed quarry (see Item 7, above), the list of additional permits that may be <br />needed over the life of the mine will also include a Temporary Substitute Supply <br />Plan (TSSP) and/or Plan of Augmentation, to account for groundwater that may <br />be depleted due to exposure of groundwater moisture on the quarry face. <br />Coordination with the State Engineer's Office will take place prior to any <br />exposure of groundwater; this exposure will occur no sooner than removal of the <br />