Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DMG Response: A number of wetlands are currently noted on the Tellier property. Only one <br />wetland will be impacted at the road crossing. The applicant has stated in the permit that a 404- <br />Permit will be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The construction of wetlands on <br />reclaimed lands will mitigate some of the potential impacts of the proposed gravel operation. The <br />applicant is required to construct wetlands that thrive under the proposed reclamation plan and in <br />accordance with the 404-Permit. The reclamation performance bond can not be released for this <br />area until the wetlands are properly constructed and vegetation has established. <br />Exhibit G. Water lnfarmation <br />11. "The statement addresses the water quantity of our well by the dewatering activities. It claims that <br />the water supply will be unaffected because the well is lower than the dewatering activities. This <br />statement may or may not be true and the quality of the water is not addressed. Since the direction <br />of underground water flow is not known, the affect of the activities on well water quality and <br />quantity needs to be addressed more scientifically." (Diane & Thane Anderson- September 21, 1998) <br />DMG Response: The applicant revised Exhibit G, Water Information to provide more detail on the <br />location and impact to the Anderson's water well. The Anderson's well is located approximately <br />1,300 feet northeast and upslope of the mining operation. The applicant states that there is a remote <br />potential for nine percent (9%) of the mine azea to potentially lower the elevation of the Anderson's <br />well since the bottom of the pit floor is below the elevation corresponding to their well. The <br />Division agrees with the applicant that there is a remote potential for the proposed mining operation <br />to adversely affect the Anderson's well because of the depth and location of the pit in relation to the <br />well. Per Rule 3.1.6(1), the applicant must demonstrate that impacts to the hydrologic balance of the <br />surrounding area have been minimized. The applicant has proposed constructing a monitoring well <br />between the pit azea and the Anderson's well prior to excavation. The operator states that all <br />proposals associated with the Routt County monitoring condition will be applied to the DMG <br />monitoring well. The requirements in the SUP aze to monitor the well on a quarterly basis for water <br />quantity and water quality. The results of the water monitoring information will be submitted to the <br />Division in connection with the required Annual Reclamation Report. In the event the monitoring <br />data shows dramatic declines in either water quality or quantity, then the Division will be notified. <br />Exhibit K. Wildlife Information <br />12. "Statements regarding the impact on wildlife made by Elizabeth Miller of the DOW, were based on <br />running the crusher for a maximum of 4 weeks (annually). The actual period of time approved for <br />the crusher operation is set at 50 days per year or 10 weeks which is considerably longer than the <br />time she had expected when she make her impact statement. Anew wildlife impact statement is <br />needed." (Diane & Thane Anderson- September 21, 1998) <br />"It is my understanding that wildlife habitat is an issue the Colorado Division of Minerals and <br />Geology must review and discuss before granting a permit. Although the Division of Wildlife <br />employee Elizabeth Miller was consulted, her comments were based on information which is <br />incorrect. Her statements reflected an impact review based on crusher operation for 4 weeks. The <br />permit applied for allows for more than twice this period of operation (10 weeks). The impact on <br />a <br />