PERMFILE47333

• Permit No: M2004067
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 11/21/2005
• Doc Name: Exhibit 206
• From: City of Black Hawk
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

MMRR Quarry, M-2004-067
Response to Sept. 20, 2005 Adequacy Review
October 24, 2005
Page 12
City of Black Hawk (Hayes, Phillips, Hoffmann & Carberry, P.C.) - (6) Exposure ofgroundwater.
The potential for groundwater exposure was covered as an adequacy issue (item
42) in the Division of Minerals and Geology's September 7, 2005 review letter.
Both the Applicant and the Division have acknowledged the potential for
groundwater exposure. Appropriate permitting commitments, as requested by
the DMG, were provided in the Applicant's letter to the DMG on September 14,
2005.
The operator will avoid exposing groundwater by backfilling to a depth of at least
two feet when groundwater is encountered, unless an appropriate substitute
supply plan or plan of augmentation is approved in advance of the exposure.
Should groundwater be impacted, a gravel well permit from the Office of the
State Engineer will likely require the ApplicantlOperator to provide a substitute
supply plan or plan of augmentation. The Applicant's commitment to avoid
groundwater impacts or obtain SEO approval is a reiteration of the applicable
state law.
City of Black Hawk (Hayes, Phillips, Hoffmann & Carberry, P.C.) - (7) Local government
approval.
With specific regard to the comments of the City of Black Hawk, Rules 1.4.5(1)
and 1.4.5(2) do not "expressly" require the Applicant to apply for a local
government approval prior to seeking a Regular 112 permit. Rather, these
provisions refer to the requirements of Rule 1.4.1 as a collective whole. The
City's proposed reading of the Construction Materials Rules gives no effect to a
key provision of Rule 1.4.1, which is the instruction that Rule 1.4.1 be read to
require submittals appropriate to each permit type (Construction Materials Rule
1.4.1(1)). Reading Rule 1.4.1 to ignore its stated intent is contrary to the
statutory framework governing the Reclamation Permit process.
The Construction Materials Act does not dictate a permitting sequence for state
Reclamation and local land use permits; the Act provides flexibility for an
applicant to seek a required local land use permit before, concurrently, or after
the state Reclamation Permit process. The MMRR Quarry Applicant's general
response to the City of Black Hawk's contrary assertion is set forth above, as
addressed to the comments of Gilpin County.
City of Black Hawk (Hayes, Phillips, Hoffmann & Carberry, P.G.) -Conclusion.
The City of Black Hawk states that "there can be no question that a County SUR
permit and other County permits are required before the legal commencement of
the proposed mining activity." This is an assertion of County jurisdiction, which
• the Applicant has not sought to dispute or question through the Reclamation