PERMFILE137472 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MLR Naard Order-Louisanu ::end and Crave: hdc?WO-File No. M-?000-OJ9 Page 1 c) Does the reclamation permit application appropriately address the potential for soil, groundwater and surface water contamination? d) Does the reclamation permit application appropriately address the safety and protection of wildlife regarding habitat disruption, disruption of mule deer severe winter range and'winter concentration area, and displacement of wildlife? 7. All parties received timely and sufficient notice of this hearing. Michelle Smesrud did not appear. 8. The Division presented the prehearing order on behalf of William T. Cohan, prehearing conference officer. This order is sufficient in all respects and should be approved. 9. Ms. Stewart objected because she is concerned that the operation will adversely impact the hydrologic balance of a stream on her property. She testified that she is concerned about potential impact to the stream and her well. She testified that the ground and surface water interact, and, more specifically, that her well is fed by seepage from the ditch on her property. She testified that she is concerned that LLG will be handling petroleum products and other potential contaminants at the mine, and that any spill would likely contaminate surface or groundwater, panicularly since LLG proposes to excavate to within two feet of the groundwater. She also testified that there is a wetland on this site that should be afforded special protection. She requested that the Boazd impose a requirement that LLG not mine within five feet of groundwater. Ms. Stewan offered no documentary evidence supporting her concerns, nor any additional witnesses, expert or otherwise, to support her case. 10. Mr. Shuey testified that the primary source of the stream on her property is groundwater, with some augmentation from surface water. He testified that LLG has committed to mine no closer than two feet from groundwater, thereby avoiding any chance of intercepting groundwater, and has committed to measures designed [o avoid materially affecting surface water flow. He further testified [ha[, according to the Colorado Division of Water Resources, Ms. Stewart has no water rights for the stream in question. Ms. Stewan did not rebut this evidence. I I. Mr. Stover testified that no azea in the proposed permit area has been designated a wetland, although there are wetland plant species in the area. He testified that LLG has committed to staying away from the area that has characteristics common to wetlands until the Army Corp of Engineers has had the opportunity to evaluate the area. He testified that LLG will keep all petroleum products and other contaminants in specified areas that are protected by berms, plastic liners and gravel to ensure that any spills are contained and removed without contaminating surface or groundwater. He testified that afive-foot buffer zone for groundwater would eliminate the ability of LLG to access much of the mineral resource, rendering the mine economically infeasible. He further testified that it is highly unlikely the mine would impact Ms. Stewart's well, since the excavation could not get closer than 200 feet from the road separating the mine from her property, and since the mine would not get closer than 2 feet to the groundwater. 12. Ms. Stewart questioned whether LLG had calculated the groundwater level during a dry year, and that during a year of more precipitation, the groundwater level would rise closer to the depth of excavation. 13. Mr. Stover testified that while [he depth to groundwater has been measured during a dry year, even during a wetter year, the ditch on Ms. Stewart's property would regulate the depth of groundwater so that the groundwater level would not intercept the lowest point of excavation. 14. Ms. Stewart presented no evidence regarding the safety and protection of wildlife. Mr. Shuey presented evidence that LLG plans to affect only ten acres at a time to minimize wildlife