2016-10-12_PERMIT FILE - M2016010

Home Browse Search

Rationale for Recommendation to Approve 30 September 29, 2016 water location map - not all Eagles Nest wells are included—including one that is probably closest to the proposed quarry area- what process was used to identify and select wells for this map? (C.Reed,N.Reed, C.Hancock,D.Hancock) This specific issue was addressed by the Applicant's consultant, BBA Water Consultants in their memorandum, dated July 11, 2016, which was included with the adequacy review response submitted on July 14,2016. The response states that the well inventory and well location map presented in their previous memorandum is comprehensive of all nearby wells that have valid well permits as presented in the DWR master well list. The inventory and location map do not include information for wells that have cancelled or expired permits, have been replaced or abandoned, or are inappropriately located. Although the well permit no. is not given in the objection letter, BBA Water Consultants believes the comment references well permit no. 58506, which is located northwest of the property boundary. This well was included in the research and analysis, and the State's permit information indicates that the well permit has been cancelled. Based on the review of well permit information, it was concluded that there is not an existing well at that location of permit no. 58506, and if there is, it is not operating under a valid well permit. However, an updated well location map (Figure 1) is attached to the memorandum for reference. It should be noted that, pursuant to Rule 6.4.3(g), the Applicant is required to show the location of all significant, valuable, and permanent man-made structures contained on the area of affected land and within two hundred feet of the affected land. All of the wells shown on Figure 1 in the BBA Water Consultants memorandum are located more than two hundred feet from the proposed affected land. 28. Concerns regarding the presence of heavy metals (e.g., Lead) in mined rock could contaminate water down gradient(Larsen well permit no. 185659 is not a potable source due to Lead, located 1800 feet from north ridge of pit; removal of 100 million tons of stone provides opportunity for Pyrite in waste rock to oxidize, mobilize Lead and enter surface water and groundwater-thus how can operator control Lead contamination down gradient?); Concern that Exhibit G does not adequately demonstrate that disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of affected land and of surrounding area will be minimized per 34-32.5-116(4)(h) (C.Reed,N.Reed,J.Moore, K.Moore) In Exhibit G, the permit application states that the aggregate operation will be developed within a deposit of inert granitic rock and no acid-forming or toxic producing materials were identified during the exploratory drilling and sampling program. Therefore,no release of pollutants to groundwater is expected. As described in Exhibit D,the target of the aggregate resource for the proposed mine operation is basement rock of Precambrian age comprised mostly of igneous and/or metamorphosed granodiorite and Pikes Peak granite. Available literature, surface mapping, and observation of drill core samples on the property did not indicate the presence of any mineralization that could potentially provide a mineral resource that would be in conflict with the objectives of developing a surface mine for aggregate stone. Based on the core drilling,no minerals of economic value were identified.The application states that no sulfides or any other water degradation minerals were identified on the property. /OF^6o 0 1313 Sl,ermar Street, Roor°215, Ce,iver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3567 F 303.832.3106 hftp:/ state.co.ris John tlj Nxk<nloaaer. Gaverno� Rob.srt b"!. �-�}r1,3:i, Execr.tive D„=�ctrn ! `Jrro nri 6ynno,i, Dirr�cw plr * � - *il