Laserfiche WebLink
ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTING PARTIES <br />Staff have reviewed the objection letters and have organized the issues raised by the <br />objecting parties as follows: <br />1. Administrative Comments <br />a. Has the applicant and the DMG complied with all public notice requirements <br />of the Act and Rules? (Ott, Pierce, Mayo, Rau, Torrence) <br />b. Can the public comment period be extended? Requests for more information <br />and discussion before permit issued. (Pierce, Torrence, D & L James) <br />c. Issues raised by objecting citizens should be addressed in public forum. <br />(Pierce, Mayo, D & L James, Torrence) <br />2. Permit Issues Related to the Amendment <br />a. Has the applicant and it's permitting consultant been forthright and <br />accurate? (Pierce, Ritz, Mayo) <br />b. Comments regarding the long-term stability of the proposed river bank <br />modifications. (Rau, D & L James) <br />c. Proximity of proposed lake to river channel, too close, channel stability <br />impaired. Proposed activity will destabilize river channel. (Rau, Dan James, <br />D & L James) <br />d. Bank protection and stabilization measures not adequate. <br />(Pierce, Ritz, Mayo, Dan James) <br />e. West bank armoring insufficient to protect embankment against erosion <br />during flood events. Southernmost 200' of embankment not armored, <br />Cottonwood trees ineffective in erosion protection against flood. West bank <br />armoring not placed deep enough to survive flood activity. Stability of <br />proposed hydrological modifications under flooding conditions is not clear. <br />(Rau, D & L James, Wheeling, Mayo) <br />f. Future in-stream mining activities may adversely impact proposed lake. <br />(Dan James) <br />g. Neither risks nor the consequences to downstream property, from failure of <br />proposed jetty and/or embankment, has been evaluated by the applicant. <br />Failure of west bank reinforcement will result in erosion to downstream <br />2 <br />