Laserfiche WebLink
Letter to Mr. William Schenderlein 2 October 1. 2004 <br />one foot to five feet and that the aggregate material ranges up to 41 feet. Therefore, it appears that it <br />is possible that high walls could be as much as 46 feet tall. Since the mining and reclamation plans <br />call for mining the high walls at vertical to 1/2H=1 V slopes and reclaiming them by backfilling, it <br />appeazs that the proposed 25 and 40 foot setbacks from the permitboandaries would not be adequate <br />to prevent possible offsite impacts if the high walls were to slump. Please provide a demonstration <br />that there is not a possibility of off site impacts with the proposed setbacks, or if the setbacks aze <br />increased, provide a new set of maps showing the new setback distances. <br />b) The applicant has stated that setbacks from man-made structures not owned by the <br />applicant will be established at twice the pit depth, unless an agreement is obtained from the <br />property owner or engineering slope stability analyses aze performed. It is the Division's <br />understanding that the permit azea property is owned by the City of Westminster and <br />therefore the applicant will have to establish setbacks at twice the pit depth, or an <br />agreement for all structures within the permit azea or within 200 feet of the permit azea. Is <br />this a correct interpretation of the current property ownership situation ? All agreements <br />with property owners must comply with Rule 6.4.19 Pazagraph (a) of the Construction <br />Materials Rules and Regulations (the Rules) which requires the applicant to -provide a <br />notarized agreement between the applicant and the person(s) having an interest in the <br />structure that the applicant is to provide compensation for any damage to the structure; or <br />(b)- where such an agreement can not be reached, the applicant shall provide an appropriate <br />engineering evaluation that demonstrates that such structure shall not be damaged by <br />activities occurring at the mining operation. Compliance with either Pazagraph (a) or (b) <br />must be provided to the Division for each structure prior to any disturbance within 200 feet <br />of said structure. Please note that all agreements must be notarized. <br />c) On page 7 of the Application, in the "Miscellaneous" section, it is stated that a <br />fueling/lubrication station will be located on the site. What protection measures will be <br />used to ensure the capture of fuels lubricants in the event of a spill? Any protective berms <br />should be designed to contain 100% of the volume of stored material. The Division. <br />recommends that the storage area(s) be located outside the floodplain. If it is necessary to <br />have storage azeas within the floodplain, the applicant must also describe protection <br />measures that will be employed to contain the materials in the event of a flood. <br />3. Exhibit G Water Information <br />The Division has received objection letters from two parties, the Wattenberg Improvement <br />Association and Stillwater Lake Ranch, LLC. Among the concerns noted were the effects of pit <br />dewatering on the water table, the potential of impacts on the ground water due to the construction of <br />slurry walls not only at the Wattenberg Lake project but also cumulative impacts due to other <br />operations in the adjacent area and the concern by the Association that the mining operation may <br />- adversely affect the water levels of the well from which the Association provides the water supply to <br />its members. Rule 3.1.6(1) of the Rules states that "Disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance <br />of the affected land and of the surrounding area and to the quantity and quality of water in surface and <br />