Laserfiche WebLink
__ <br />structure owners perceive them as 'valuable', in accordance with Rule 6.4.19 of the Construction <br />Materials Rules and Regulations. Any setbacks proposed based on the soil stability analysis must <br />leave these structures intact. If a letter from [he landowner stating that the structure has no significant <br />value can not be obtained, then the Applicant is reminded that the residential setbacks must apply to <br />all structures which the landowners wish to be left undisturbed. The proposed 45' setback From <br />residential fencing has not been verified through analysis. The re-analysis of slope stability should <br />show where the fencing is in relation to the mining face and the buildings. <br />4) DMG disagrees with the evaluation of worst case scenario levels for groundwater. In the absence of <br />concrete hydrological data contradicting the initial conditions, we are constrained by the evidence <br />submitted by Terracon in their soil borings. Any soil stability analyses which will be submitted must <br />use these levels to represent the highest point of the phreatic surface and the groundwater levels below <br />the critical structures. No analysis with any other assumed highest groundwater level will be regarded <br />as meeting the minimum engineering standards required for this soil stability analysis. The Applicant <br />may submit a permit revision to the Division for lesser setbacks once the pit is opened up and the <br />groundwater levels have stabilized, been measured, and verified. Please re-submit analyses with the <br />currently known values. <br />5) It is now understood that the previous analyses were all analyzed with a 0.1 H:I.OV mine slope. This is <br />an acceptable slope, and may be used in the re-analysis. <br />6) The Applicant's commitment to not expose groundwater prior to submitting a Technical Revision to <br />the permit with full liner design criteria is an acceptable response to our query. <br />Please address these concerns prior to the currently scheduled due date of March 3, ?000. If these <br />concems are not dealt with, or the decision date extended by March 3, DMG will be forced to deny your <br />application on this date. At this time, the Division is anticipating holding aPre-Hearing Conference on <br />March 14. An extension to March 6 would still allow the objection process to go forward this month. <br />If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (303) 866-3567. <br />Sincerely, <br />C~- ~-1~~.,,tµ.~. <br />Christina L. Kamnikar <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Cc: Carl B. Mount, DMG <br />Shani Eastin, Tuttle-Applegate Inc. <br />Connie Davis, CAMAS <br />US Fish & Wildlife Service <br />US Army Corps of Engineers <br />Objection List <br />