Laserfiche WebLink
i ~ L • <br /> <br />Page 18 <br />Objector Response -The Division of Wildlife has reviewed the application and states that <br />impacts to fish will be minimal. The DOW did not relate any concems regarding impacts <br />to other aquatic life. Since the applicant's surface water control plans nearly eliminate <br />surface flows to streams, there should be very little impact to aquatic life. Any groundwater <br />reaching the streams from beneath the gravel operation should be of the same quality as the <br />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 />Response -The writer of this issue has not related the potential for seismic activity to any <br />activity proposed for the mining operation. The Division has no response to this issue, but <br />has responded to other issues regarding concems about faults in the azea. <br />"I am concerned that Agile submitted changed from the original permit application submitted <br />to your Division. Agile Stone Systems should have to go through the entire process of an <br />original perrrtit application." <br />Response -The Division interprets this issue to mean that the concern is that Agile has not <br />committed to a testing schedule or to specific water quality parameters for their well <br />monitoring. Because the Division believes there is no potential for adverse impacts to <br />ground water quality from the proposed gravel mining and processing operations, we are <br />only stipulating in our approval recommendation that static water levels be monitored in two <br />wells and flow rate fluctuations be monitored at two springs. <br />"The new application has substantially changed from the original permit application <br />submitted to your division. Agile Stone Systems should have to go through the entire <br />process of an original permit application." <br />Response -The Division reviewed the applicant's response to the Division's adequacy letter <br />and determined that except for the addition of land to the affected land azea, the responses <br />were clarifications to the application. Under Rule 1.8.](4) and 1.8.4, the Division <br />deternined the addition of affected lands constituted an amendment to the application. The <br />Division set a new decision date for [he application in accordance with Rule 1.8.4. The <br />application received more review as an antended application than the original submittal but <br />