2003-04-10_REVISION - M1999034 (2)

Home Browse Search

Toppet Objection Amendment No.l - Jetoa3mus Pmpetty Petmdt # M-99-034 The applicant's permit documentation includes a Geotechnical Stability Exhibit prepared by TuttleApplegate, Inc. The Slope Stability Evaluation, prepared January 1999, is from the original application. Item #4 on page 10 of the Geotechnical Stability Exhibit states "The analysis is based on assumptions using soil properties that are generally found in the South Platte ]fiver. Field inspection of geologic anomalies by a professional is recommended." The roles and regulations of the Division of Minerals and Geology require that any mining within a 200-foot setback.of a man- made structure show through engineering analysis that the mining will not cause damage. As noted previously, the residence structure and outbuilding on my property are located approximately 40-feet east of the Amendment No.l Area boundary, while the storage ham is daectly adjacent to the property boundary. Adjacent to these stracttaes exist our wager supply and irrigation wells. The mining plan proposes a minimum excavation setback of 35-feet from any adjacent property line. Considering this setback, my structures lie within a range of 35 to approximately 75 feet of the excavation. An analysis of the surface contours on the applicant's mining plan map, Exhibit C-2, indicates that at least 30-feet of material lie above the current Iake level With mining continuing below the water line, tbe resultant ]igh wall will be in excess of 30-feet vertical adjacent to my property line. The applicant has not demonstrated that an engineering analysis was conducted to evaluate potential damage to my existing structures, nor have these structiaes been identified in Exhibit S -Permanent Man-Made Structures. The applicant has not followed through with recommendations provided by their consuhant TuttheApplegate, Inc. in performing geologic field inspections, not have they tiled-site specific geotechnical data in their modeling. Lastly, file vegetation information included as Exhibit J contains a letter dated January 28, 2003 -from tTndrea V'~pan3o~tTi~a-Tiiesouroe~onservarion Scrvrc ce: -IIn3er tZle~ie-~ - `°Threatened and Endangered Species" on page 2, Ms. Vialpando indicates that `°There are a number of protected species associated with riparian areas including Bald eagle and Preble's meadow jumping mouse. We recommend that the Colorado Department of Wildlife be contacted to assess the potential impact to these species." While the wildlife information included as Exhibit H includes -----a mention of an evaluation of protected species as required under tbe Endangered Species Act. The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with this Act or impleme~ed the recommendations of the Natural Resource Conservation Service. In conclusion, I request that the Division of Minerals and Geology reject. the application for Amendment No.l - 7eronimus Property to Permit # M-99-034 submitted by Aggregate Industries - _ _ _ WCIf, Inc_ on the basis of: 1) inconsistencies in factual information contained in the permit agglication documents, 2) lrlcely injury to decreed water rights, 3) inadequate evaluation of water quality impacts, 4) lack of adequate slope stability evaluation, and 5) non-compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Thank you for the opportunity of presenting my concerns and objections. Again, I wish to be a registered party to future actions concerning this permit application, Sincer^elAyn f ~u~ ~ Karen Topper