PERMFILE137059 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MMRR Quarry, M-2004-067 Response to Sept. 20, 2005 Adequacy Review October 24, 2005 Page 5 In accordance with Rule 1.4.1(1), a properly completed Regular 112 application form has been submitted for file M-2004-067. Under line 3, the form clearly lists the permitted acreage. The permitted boundary has included 526.70 acres throughout the permitting process and this number remains accurate today. The Division's Regular 112 application form does not contain a location for applicants to list affected acreage; Construction Materials Rules specify only that affected acreage be provided in applicant Exhibits, which Rules have been properly observed in this application process. There is no inaccuracy in the previously submitted DMG Regular 112 application form for the MMRR Quarry. A newly executed and properly completed application form would be identical in content to the form already submitted. Submittal of a "revised" application form where there is no revision is unnecessary and inappropriate in this case. For the Division's reference, the affected acreages for scenarios 'A,' 'B,' and 'C' are, respectively: (A) 34.30 ac., (B) 39.95 ac., and (C) 39.28 ac. Major factors contributing to the extent of disturbance under each scenario include haul road alignment (to achieve acceptable gradient) and benching criteria as applied to both quarry production areas and access drive side slopes. Affected area has been reduced from scenario 'B' to the current access point, scenario 'C,' and it is also noteworthy that, volumetrically, the impact of access drive construction under the current scenario is approximately 400,000 cubic yards less waste rock than under scenario `B.' G. City of Black Hawk & Gilpin County Comments -The Division affirms its previous request on September 16, 2005 for the Applicant to provide a written response to September 12, 2005 correspondence the Division received from the City of Black Hawk via Hayes, Phillips, Hoffman & Carberry, and the County of Gilpin via Petrock & Fendel. Please provide. The Applicant renews its objection to the untimely nature of certain public comments incorporated into this review process. While the technical adequacy of this application is of primary importance, which we seek to address thoroughly with this letter and each adequacy review response, policy should encourage those submitting technical criticisms and other objections to do so at the soonest opportunity. Ordinarily, comments protesting an application must be submitted within 20 days of the last date of published notice or its equivalent, giving the Division the ability to identify from the outset any specific concerns that should be addressed during the adequacy review process. On the other hand, serial objections over the course of a review, submitted without adequate time to provide a realistic opportunity for applicant input, are prone to abuse. In this case, we are