Laserfiche WebLink
<br />place, and copies submitted to DMG, the Operator must <br />maintain a 200-foot setback from these structures, <br />instead of the 50-foot setback described in the <br />application. The Operator may, as an alternative, submit <br />an engineering evaluation from a licensed engineer(slope <br />stability analysis, soil strength analysis, and shear <br />strength tests) which would prove that the impacts to <br />these structures from the nearby mining would be <br />negligible. Additionally, ownership of the McKay Ditch, <br />and the SH9 ditch, was not specified; if the Operator is <br />not the owner of the portions of the structures crossing <br />the site, then agreements with their owners must obtained <br />also. Please specify which course of action the Operator <br />will be taking prior to the submittal of legal agreements <br />with the owners of the structures. This is in accordance <br />with C.R.S. 34-32.5-115(4)(e). <br />In addition to DMG's individual exhibit concerns, it has been <br />found, after examining the application, that the designated end <br />land-use of "rangeland" is too limited for a site which will <br />include 115 acres of lake area out of a 216 acre site. The Division <br />believes that changing the end land-use to "rangeland/wildlife <br />habitat" is more appropriate, and in keeping with the designs <br />submitted in the application. <br />Three objectors have sent in written comments to the Division, <br />asking that their concerns be addressed (these letters were faxed <br />to Tuttle Applegate on September 17, 1996). Ms. Young, the <br />adjacent landowner, stated that she felt the permit should be <br />denied until her concerns about the operation of the nearby Love <br />Pit were addressed. Mr. Richard A. Wyler, a nearby landowner, and <br />the Summit County also objected to the application, and raised the <br />following concerns: <br />1) That the end land use should be wildlife habitat, not <br />rangeland. <br />2) That dust control measures should be implemented at the site. <br />3) That the final sloping around the lakes should be 4H:lV, <br />instead of 3H:1V and 2H:1V. <br />4) That the costs of creating wetlands be included in the final <br />reclamation cost estimate. <br />5) That provisions for changes in traffic patterns along SH 9 be <br />made for the next twenty years. <br />6) That various landscaping suggestions of the County be <br />implemented in the final Reclamation Plan. <br />7) That Section 306 Clean Water Act Source Performance Standards <br />and the required monitoring plan for the site be made public. <br />Please respond to this letter as promptly as possible, so that any <br />questions may be resolved prior to the application due date of <br />October 21, 1996. The Division may have additional concerns after <br />the Operator's response, depending on the information given to DMG. <br />If you have any questions, please contact me at (303) 866-3567. <br />