Laserfiche WebLink
operations, the Applicant would backfill those areas to 2 feet above groundwater. <br /> Other potential disturbances to hydrologic balance are minimized because Applicant <br /> has a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health <br /> and Environment, no harmful materials are stored on site, processing of materials on <br /> site is minimal, there are no streams within a half mile of the site, and there have <br /> been and will be no anticipated impacts to a historical mine's discharge systems to <br /> the east of the permit area. <br /> 16. Applicant presented testimony on hydrologic issues, highlighting the <br /> geological features of the site and how they impact water issues. The mine site does <br /> not overlay the Denver Basin aquifer system, which is east of the mine. Though <br /> there is a topographically low area east of the mine, it is underlaid by an <br /> impermeable shale layer and water flowing there is consumed by vegetation, with the <br /> area typically dry. Regarding groundwater, mining activities will not go below the <br /> water table, and the mining plan calls for water used in dust suppression to come <br /> from offsite, further ensuring no depletion of ground water. Nearby wells will also <br /> not be affected by the mining operation because they are either on the west of the <br /> hogback or in a different basin and are geographically isolated from the mine site. <br /> Impacts to water in historical mine workings will also be avoided because the mine's <br /> final floor will be at 6,050 feet above sea level and the historical mine workings with <br /> water are 150 feet below that level. Finally, runoff water will be contained at the site <br /> pursuant to a stormwater permit, with no effects outside the permitted area. <br /> 17. Objectors also presented testimony on hydrologic issues, arguing that <br /> the Application did not contain enough information to determine that impacts to the <br /> hydrologic balance would be minimized and that the Application was incomplete. r <br /> Objector Richard Bohling stated that water from the site would runoff and mingle <br /> with water discharged from the nearby historical mine, which has water quality <br /> issues. Objector Myzwicki argued that the Denver Basin was actually closer to the <br /> site than Applicant claimed and that contaminants from rock would leech out and <br /> into the Denver Basin aquifer. Objector Wilson argued that surrounding wells and <br /> water already had water quality issues and claimed that the Application had not <br /> demonstrated that the mining operations would not make things worse. <br /> 18. Regarding wildlife issues, the Division presented testimony regarding <br /> potential impacts to wildlife. Colorado Parks and Wildlife submitted late comments <br /> regarding mule deer extreme winter range overlapping with the proposed permit <br /> increase and the potential for bats in historic mines that could be affected by the j <br /> proposed operation. The comments, however, did not identify any threatened species. <br /> The current site has been mined since 1976, with wildlife adjusting to the activity <br /> over the ensuing 46 years, and the pace of activity at the site will not increase under <br /> the Application. Applicant has identified existing historic adits with grates and will <br /> contact Colorado Parks and Wildlife to address potential bat issues should mining <br /> activities get close to those adits. No perennial wetlands or streams or floodplains <br /> Denver Brick Company <br /> Golden Mine/M-1976-007UG 4 <br />