Laserfiche WebLink
Page 16 <br />Response -The Division of Wildlife has reviewed the application and states that impacts to fish will <br />be minimal. The DOW did not relate any concerns regazding impacts to other aquatic life. Since the <br />applicant's surface water control plans neazly elinunate surface Flows to streams, there should be very <br />little impact to aquatic life. Any groundwater reaching the streams from beneath the gravel operation <br />should be of the same quality as the water that has historically Flowed to them. <br />ISSUES NOT PERTAINING TO A SPECIFIC EXHIBIT <br />"The potential for seismic activity is present due to the configuration of many fault lines." <br />(B. Steers) <br />Response -The writer of this issue has not related the potential for seismic activity to any activity <br />proposed for the mining operation. The Division has no response to this issue, but has responded to <br />other issues regarding concerns about faults in the area. <br />2. "I am concerned that Agile submitted to testing schedule or specific pollution criteria for their well <br />monitoring." <br />(J. Brown) <br />Response -The Division interprets this issue to mean that the concern is that Agile has not committed <br />to a testing schedule or to specific water quality parameters for their well monitoring. Because the <br />Division believes there is no potential for adverse impacts to ground water quality from the proposed <br />gravel mining and processing operations, we are only stipulating in our approval recommendation that <br />static water levels be monitored in two wells and Flow rate fluctuations be monitored at two springs. <br />3. "The new application has substantially changed from the original permit application submitted to your <br />division. Agile Stone Systems should have to go through the entire process of an original permit <br />application." <br />(J. Clark, L. Clark) <br />Response -The Division reviewed the applicant's response to the Division's adequacy letter and <br />determined that except for the addition of land to the affected land area, the responses were <br />clarifications [o [he application. Under Rule 1.8.1(4) and ].8.4, the Division determined the addition <br />of affected lands constituted an amendment to the application. The Division set a new decision date <br />for the application in accordance with Rule 1.8.4. The application received more Division review as <br />an amended application than the original submittal. The public was provided the same amount of time <br />to provide comments and objections as allowed for the original application. <br />/SSUES RA/SED DURING THE INITIAL COMMENT PERIOD THAT THE D/VISION <br />BELIEVES ARE NOT WITHIN THE./URISDICTION OF THE DIVISION OR BOARD <br />