PERMFILE121480 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~1cmo W Erica Crosby ? January I G, 2(11)4 Duckwgrth Pit Setbacks and Ditc"I+ Seepage _ _ _ Pemiii_V~i_M-2(x11_091 l he pcrntit applirttion does not provide the easement width for Idaho Creek O+rough the pmposexl pcrntit area. I~ur the nwst pan, the setbacks described and i Ilustruted atwve arc adcyuate to assure the stn+ca+ral stability of the ditcher and the other manm;alc I:+cilitics around the pit. Ifuw-ever, the ten-foot setback tom the Smith and limnums Ditch easentcnt line results in a setback distance th:n is Icss than two times the maximum 25-foot pit depth. 'I-his setback is not in accord with :lpplicmtt's engineering analysis provided in Exhibit S, and the UMG would not accept this setback distance without fi+rthcr analysis. 'I~he Operator must specify which ol'the various proposal setbacks will be the cnfi~rccablc pcrntit conditions for the operation of the Duckworth Pit. fn sclc~cting the setback distance requirements, the Operawr should consider their rights to mine w ithin any casemcuts. If the Operator selects setback distances that indicate mining will take place within casements, prool'of Icgal right of entry will be rcyuirod. "fhc Operator must Iurlhcr spccily the angle at which the pit slope will be excavated as mining approaches a stn+cture or a setback line, must specify landmarks from which setback distances will he measured, c.g., from the lop of the ditch bank or from the ditch centerline, from a property or casement line or 1'rum the edge of the strncture itself? And the Operator must specify how and when the setback lines will he located and marlecd. I"hc permit application commits to a Ill-root mining setback Iron the west pri+pcrty line. The D~1G has previously approved the installation of:+ slurry wall 23-feel further to the west of that San1C property line. 'fhe slurry wall approval was made under the auspices of reclamation pcrn+it ~I- I994-027 held by Aggregate Industries. Phis means that mining of the Duckworth Pil could occur as close as 33-feet to the location of the proposed slurry wall, as illustrated in the li+llowing cross section. Sl mrd I•ucr Approx. r`WrrtY 25-fort Linc flurry 11'all The proposed ten-loot setback from the w•cst property line results in a setback linen the slurry wall that is Icss th;u+ two times the maximum 2S-foot pit depth. This setback is not in accord with :\pplicanl's cnginccring analysis provided in !{xhibit S, anJ the D.b1G would not accept this setback distance without further analysis. The D~iG would accept a 30-foot setback for the west property line as being protccu~e ol'the proposed slurry wall. 'fhe Ditch Company has provided DMG with w"rittcn comments expressing concern with the potential lix increased seepage losses from the Smith and Timmons Ditch during the dcwatering and excavation of the Duckworth Pit. The D\-iG concurs with the Ditch Company's position that this is a legitimate