Laserfiche WebLink
\ ~ -• • <br />III. ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED: <br />Issues to be considered are based on the Pre-hearing Order for the S&H Mine initially dated Apri! 18, 2001 and revised <br />June 4. 2001. <br />I. Reclarrratiort plan with respect to enrironmerttal protection ojsttrjace water rur+-on, run-ojf, discharge, and goals <br />artd expectations. (Micltael Decker) <br />"Envirorunenrnl issues addressed ir+ the application is vague and non-descriptive. An errvironmenral impact <br />statement should be prarided upfront, brirrgirtg into plan rur+-ar, sun-off, dischm~ge, clean water act and <br />NPDES issues with solid soluriarts arrd goals/expectations. " (Michael Decker; Febnran' /6, 2001) <br />Division Response- An Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be submitted to the Division in order <br />to obtain a Mining and Reclamation Permit. However, the applicant does need to address surface water runoff <br />issues, any mine dewatering and state if an NPDES permit will be obtained. Such procedures are included in the <br />proposed mine plan to specifically address any off site impacts. Specifically, the applicant has stated that an <br />NPDES Permit, SPCC and Stormwater Permit will be obtained from the Colorado Department of Health and <br />Environment. All processing water will be directed into a series of silt ponds contained within the disturbed area <br />of the mine. <br />2. Potential impacts from mining operation to adjacent landowners domestic wells, irrigation wells and alluvia[ <br />groundwater used jot srtbirrigation. (Kathryn A. Hardin; Michael Ptasnik; Scott, Brochard, Deprate, Odenbaugh, <br />Reirrick & Rippe, Western Mutual Ditclt Company, Betlt and Michael Decker) <br />"Concerned x~ith groundwater impacts. Domestic water is from a well and the ground is sub irrigated from the <br />+r~ater level. Possible impacts to dte water table level and loss of the dmnestic well...deprn•b+g us of water. " <br />(Kathn•n A. Hardin; Febran• J, 200/j <br />• "We have 3 homes with 3 domestic x•e//s and ten irrigation wells an the adjacent propern•. Wells are located <br />within /69 jeer to .i 16 jeer of the applicant's land. Irrigation wells are located within /69 feet and 427 feet of <br />the applicmu's land and three wells are approximatek 800 jeer away. Wells are in danger if dex~atering and <br />dr~~ mining techniq+res are utilized. My right to farm is threatened.'" (Michael Ptasnik; Febnran' 7, 20011 <br />"'Groundwater protection; applicant leaves open the option to change the mining to a dn~ operation at the <br />discretion of the operator. A dry operation would require dewatering of the active mine pit. The application <br />does nor offer an}' protection to surrowrding properq~ owners or farmers regarding protection of adjacent <br />agriculnrre or domestic wells. A shrrn• wall in active pits would be n minirnurn requiremeN jot protection. <br />Moniror wells drilled at the applicau's expense and monitored regularly 6v a neutral third party would be <br />appropriate." (Scott, Brochard, Depratt, Odenbaugh, Remick & Rippe; February l4, 2001) <br />• "Water issues will be affected b}' the operation ojthis si;.e oral duration and statements in the application show <br />no proof of protection m the landowners in the area. The liability to replace surrounding owners of water <br />rights/irrigation rights are nor addressed at all. " (Michael Decker; Febnran• /6, 2001) <br />• "Afraid shat the mining operation rill deplete the aquifer that supplies nn' deep irrigation ti ell, something that 1 <br />hove to bare to continue farming. ° (Beth Decker; Febnran Ih, 200I j <br />• "Regional lrcdrologic impact analtsis prepared bt LeajEngineerirrg. Arm/vsis prepared by Leaf Engineering <br />states that the production from each well ox ned br Mr. Ptnruik will be decreased, and in some insmnces, <br />surging will result (l0 inigation wells and nro domestic wells l." (Michael Ptasnik; Marc~he9~2001) <br />Division Response- The applicant's initial submittal of the application on December 27. 200,Ydid not adequately <br />address impacts to the groundwater hydroloey and surrounding well owners. A combination of "dry mining" <br />and "wet mining' techniques were proposed under the plan. The Division's adequacy review of February 22. <br />2001 specifically requested additional information regarding impacts to the surrounding well owners. The <br />applicant submiued a groundwater analysis prepared by Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. dated <br />