Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Wagner Presentation Outline <br />I) Initial Application. <br />Exhibits -completeness -Tech Adequacy. Seed mix, silt fence, other commitments. Bond set at <br />58,700.00. <br />No blasting included. <br />Approved on April 14,1999. <br />2) SCD objection -alter comment period. April 16 letter from DMG was sent to them; this mentioned <br />approval of limited blasting. Later, upon re-examining the permit application, it was found that no <br />mention of blasting was made in the original applicalicm. So this permit was approved with no blasting <br />plan. SCD approved the seed mix and other stuff. <br />Further comments/appeals from Jane King and Donna Ashbaugh-Halt received within 60-day time <br />period. Later objection from Jim Ross received after 60-day period; all of his objections center around <br />the blasting. <br />Most of objections centered around blasting, and the effects on the spring; some centered around the <br />accuracy of Mr. Wagner's submittal. <br />3) June 8 inspection. <br />Examined site; found some problems. (Noted & repaired since). <br />Examined spring and spring box. Concrete poured in tfe 1940's; feeds three pipes- Kings, Biskups, <br />Halls. (Explain water right division). <br />Met with Mrs. Ashbaugh-Hall and Mrs. King and expl~iined the appeals process and the basics of <br />blasting and technical revisions required by DMG from Mr. Wagner. <br />4) Distance to spring. <br />Original application (measurements on map). <br />Map submitted by Donna Ashbaugh-Hall. (scales assumed and why) <br />Map submitted by Jane King. (scales assumed and why <br />Map submitted by W-R Realty. (scaled) <br />All seem to agree: approximately 1000' to spring from the northwest edge (closest corner) of the site. <br />ApproximateVy 60' l0 80', minimum, from the height of~the site to the spring (estimated). Depth to be <br />excavated: 23' max. <br />5) Effects on Water Quality. <br />"" ~~" Note from WR Division. (none known at this time) <br />1 ~ ~o-o-~l DMG assumptions: that this area is a basin which drains from the rock above and feeds the spring. <br />11 ' 1 ,, n No noxious chemicals mentioned in the application as b~:ing stored on-site. <br />~- Mom Some equipment; silt fences in place so there is no direct drainage off-site. <br />11 ~ ~ 6) Effects on Water Quantity. <br />Unknown but unlikely --- fault line map (Jane King); no' on the fault or near it. <br />3~ ~ n 7) Effects on spring box <br />(~I ;D`~, A[ this distances and depth, unlikely to be any with conv^_ntional mining. Soil type; distance. <br />~}~ ~ g) <br />~ - - 1 <br />5)~~ ~~ <br />Technical revision entered to amend boundaries; possibility of site being moved even farther away, <br />due to mining considerations. <br />No technical revision to blast entered a[ this lime; test blasting may be done so [hat a licensed <br />professional engineer may determine the effects of blasting on [he sprang box and take tremor <br />measurements. <br />