Laserfiche WebLink
quality pcrtnits prior to discharging water from point wurce(s) on the proposed mine site. Therefore, the <br />4pplicant has complied wnh Rule 3.1.7. <br />1 g. Has the Applicam demonstrated corrq+liancr with Rulc 6.6.14 Eixhihtt 5 - Pertnanent \fau-Made <br />Swctures for all significant, valuable, and perrttattem man-made swcturrs within 20U fort of the proposed <br />afTected land? <br />D!~IG Response - The Applicant has demonstra[ed compliance with Rule 6.4.14 via a geotechnical <br />engineering analysts prepared by Lyman Henn, [nc. that demonstrates that any pemwnent man-rrtade <br />swcmrc uithm 2W feet of the atTected land will not be damaged by acuviues occtunng at the muting <br />operation and a geological engincerutg upon prepared by Dr. John Abel , P.E. verifying that all quarry <br />highwatis will be reclaimed to a stable coaliguration. <br />I4. Has the :\pplicant demonsva[cd compliance with opplicable grounduatcr pctivmmncc standards, as <br />required by Rulc 3.1.?? <br />DNG Resptmse • the Applicant has committed to comply with Rulr 3.1.7. The Applicant has provided a <br />hydrologic anahsis prrpazed by Lytmn Henn, Inc. which indicates that although grounds ater sill <br />probably be exposed dunrtg excavation, an apprninbir accumu;ation of groundwater a not anticipated and <br />it should not br tte+;cssary to discharge (pumps groundwater from the yuurrv. The proposed operation is not <br />expected to have ncgauvc ofT•sitr effects on groundwater. Tlx Lyman Henn, Inc. groundwater study <br />concludes that advent water quality impacts will not be experienced at nearby, offsite gruundwater wells. <br />A IVD1Cal nnam' 61ast i5 not likeh• to arrinucl+• dicnmt the a.-n~-a1 natnm of arnnntiu~rn~r hvdrnlnnv <br />ruin to a point where nearhy wells would br effected. The Lyman Hem. <br />lades that although there wal be a locahred etTcct ov groundwater <br />ur enough to physically affect other welts :n the sturvunding area. <br />an odequnte surface aster quaiiry momtoring program which ertsrues <br />and testilting groundwater quality from infiltration info the ftactttrcd <br />20. Has the :\pplicsnt provided Prc-Mining d Mining Plan Naps that acctwtely show the location of the <br />yuam• entrance and all permanent mart-made swctures within 200 feet of the yuam entrance laftected <br />landl? <br />D'vK; Response -The Applicant has provided revised Naps C-l, C-2A, C-2B. & G2C. which clearly and <br />accuratdv show the Isxauon of the yuarrv entrance and the location o(aA permanent man-made structures <br />within 200 fort of the quarry entrance. <br />I++ur, I(ai+rJ :\hcr the ('lose of the Initial Public ('omment Period <br />A. 'ilia applicanun does not adcyuatcly identify potrnual mewl, nutrient, and sediment impacd from th <br />operation to \orth Clear Crcck or offer n plan to mntgate these impacts. <br />DNG Response -See response to comments 5, 9, & I s, above. <br />B. flan the Applicant complied with Gilpin County requirctrunu for a Special Use Permit? <br />I tMG Response -See response to cornmcnt 4 above. <br />