Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Tom Schreiner, Division of Minerals and Geology <br />April 15, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />~~ <br />CIVIL RES'~URCES,LLC <br />Comment 11: It is the Divisions understanding that the applicant has proposed monitoring the quality ... <br />Response 11: We have proposed to comply with the appropriate governing agency responsible for <br />determining the requirements for monitoring of the groundwater quality parameters for this <br />project application. The USEPA regulates water quality for water being directly recharged <br />to an aquifer as per 40CFR144. CDPHE regulates the quality of the water that is being <br />discharged from the site in the form of surface water via a discharge permit. Water quality <br />monitoring requirements will be completed per each of their requirements including but <br />not limited to pH, TSS, turbidity, and electrical conductivity. We request that the <br />agency(s) responsible for monitoring and setting policy for determining discharge <br />monitoring standards be allowed to do so for this project, similar to other gravel mining <br />sites. <br />Comment 12: The applicant has specked a Yrigger" of Iwo (2) feet below fhe annual ... <br />Response 12: The general procedure that would be followed to provide specific "secondary mitigation <br />measures" would include: <br />- Contact neighboring well owners to discuss the performance of their existing wells. If <br />negative impacts are indicated by a well owner then one of the following measures would <br />be proposed: <br />1. Add a recharge site on the Property near the affected area; <br />2. Re-drill (deepen the affected well; <br />3. Provide dewateling water to the affected party for direct use in irrigation at a rate equal to <br />or less than their decreed well pumping rate; <br />4. Install a temporary water storage tank and pump system to deliver potable water to <br />affected domestic wells; <br />Comment i3: Please clarify the location and horizontal distance fo fhe domestic well owned by ... <br />Response 13: The objector's well is located approximately 90 feet from the limits of the proposed mining <br />in the north silt pond location as indicated in the Response 6 table. The applicant has met <br />with the objector concerning their domestic well. However, due to the closed-access <br />construction of the well, no actual measurements (well depth, depth to groundwater, ect..) <br />could me made to-date. The objector has contacted the driller who completed their <br />domestic well and will be obtaining well information. Further, we intend to access her well <br />as soon as possible to obtain independent information and to evaluate whether deepening <br />her well is a possibility. The estimated location of this well is shown on the attached <br />figure, however, we currently have no information indicating a registered well permit at <br />this location. <br />Comment 14: Liner Reclamation - In conformance with Rule6.4.4, the applicant has provided ... <br />Response 14: None ofthe on-site borings that we have completed has indicated the presence of cracks, <br />fissures, sand lenses or other undesirable features. However, this does not guarantee <br />that these features could not still be present in some limited scope within the foundation of <br />the 6,000 linear feet of maximum liner length that could be unfinished atone time (refer <br />Erica Crosby's response to comments). Therefore, we will add a Reclamation Cost of <br />$10,000 toover-excavate the affected area and replace it with good, compacted material <br />(volume of approximately 3,000 cubic yards at $3.30 per cubic yard). <br />