Laserfiche WebLink
RESPONSE.See response to Comment 11 above. C-1 ofAmendment 10 only include <br /> parcel]Ds for adjacent land owners not owners of affected lands as included in Exhibit <br /> O. The revised Drawing C-1 included in Attachment 1,provides the parcel ID numbers <br /> for third party property owners within 200 feet of the Amended Amendment 11 Boundary <br /> so it may be cross-referenced with the property owners listed in Exhibit T. We have <br /> generated a new Drawing C-1 b, which includes parcel ID numbers for owners of <br /> affected lands that can be cross referenced with Exhibit O. See Attachment 1. <br /> 13. The first paragraph cites history since 1981. <br /> • This has all been for surface mining. AM-11 proposes underground mining in the area <br /> of Chicago Tunnel/Poverty Gulch which is near the Mollie Kathleen tourist mine. The <br /> Division received a complaint from the Mollie Kathleen operators citing blasting from <br /> another nearby underground operation causing safety issues. Please revise your <br /> narrative to address how CC&V will prevent impacts to the Mollie Kathleen and other <br /> nearby underground operations from your proposed underground operations. <br /> RESPONSE: CC&V takes the safety of neighboring underground operations very <br /> seriously. CC&V representatives have met several times with the owner of the Mollie <br /> Kathleen tourist mine to address the concerns listed above. Based on blasting <br /> assessments, the proposed underground mining operations will have no impact to other <br /> underground operations as old workings are not connected to the Mollie Kathleen mine <br /> and there are no plans to mine anything that would connect. In addition, the size of <br /> proposed underground blasts are relatively small(i.e., —500 lbs max) so that there is <br /> little to no risk to the Mollie Kathleen from vibrations resulting from underground <br /> activities. <br /> 6.4.21 EXHIBIT U—Designated Mining Operation Environmental Protection Plan <br /> Project Description <br /> 14. Page 4-5, 3rd bullet <br /> • This third conclusion states impact to flow and saturation in wetlands and other areas of <br /> Grassy Valley are currently under evaluation. If this evaluation is complete, please <br /> provide it to the Division. If not,please indicate when the evaluation is expected to be <br /> completed and commit to providing the evaluation to the Division. <br /> RESPONSE:Bikis Water Consultants provided an evaluation of the potential impacts to <br /> flow and saturation in Grassy Valley in early 2016, shortly after the Amendment 11 <br /> application was submitted. Their conclusions were that there have been no measurable <br /> affects to Grassy Valley from the mining activities developed as part of Amendment 10 <br /> and no future impacts are expected as a result of the activities proposed in Amendment <br /> 11. A copy of the Bikis Memo dated March 1, 2016 summarizing the evaluation is <br /> provided in Attachment 3. <br /> 15. Page 4-6, Section4.6.1 Surface Water <br /> • Of the named tributaries in this first paragraph, labels for Theresa Gulch and Bateman <br /> Creek could not found on either Figure G-1 or G-2. Please label these two tributaries on <br /> both Figures G-1 and G-2. <br /> RESPONSE. Figures G-1 and G-2 have been updated to show Theresa Gulch (which is <br /> the same as the North Fork of Wilson Creek) and Bateman Creek. A revised copy of G-1 <br /> was provided in Attachment 4 to the Adequacy Review Responses Hydrologic <br /> Evaluation, which was submitted to DRMS on July 28, 2016 A copy of G-2 is included <br /> as Attachment 4 to this submittal. <br /> Page 8 of 30 <br />