Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~ ~ <br />STATF OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OP MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />131 J Sherman 51., Room ? 15 <br />Denver, Colorado 80?03 <br />Phone: 130]1 866-386i <br />FA%: 1303) 83'-8106 <br />June I, 2000 <br />~~ <br />DIVISION OF <br />MINERALS <br />GEOLOGY <br />RECLAMATION <br />MINING•$AFE7Y <br /> 811 Owcns <br />Pam Acre envemur <br /> <br />Tuttle Applegate, inc. Grcl; E. Wall her <br />E~ecmlvc Dn~rlor <br />11990 Grant Street, Suite 304 nt,rn.,~l o. inns <br />Denver, CO 80233 D,vn,on Uveclnr <br />RE: Tanabe Pit, Regulaz 112 Application, Adequacy Review, File No. M-2000-002 <br />Dear Ms. Acre: <br />Listed below are outstanding adequacy review comments on the above-captioned permit <br />application regarding the stability analysis and groundwater hydrology portions of your May 24, <br />2000 adequacy response. The outstanding items will require either clarification or additional <br />information prior to 12:00 A.M., June 2, 2000. As you may know, the Division will be making a <br />recommended decision on your application on the afternoon of June 2, 2000. <br />EXHIBIT C -PRE-MINING & MINING PLAN MAP <br />3. The stability analysis provided and recommended setback distances as depicted on the revised <br />Exhibit CPre-Mining & Mining Plan Map cannot be accepted at this time. Please see attached <br />memo from Christina Kamnikar. However, the Division will accept a minimum setback distance <br />of twice the depth of the pit excavation as measured from the toe of the excavation to any <br />permanent man-made structures that are within 200 feet of the affected land. (The applicant is <br />welcome to provide a revised stability analysis which addresses the deficiencies noted in Ms. <br />Kamnikaz's memo as either a revision to the application or a technical revision to the permit <br />following Board Consideration). <br />EXHIBIT G -WATER INFORMATION <br />13. Page 8 of the 11 page May 24, 2000 response from Bill Schenderlein states "It was assumed <br />that 9 percent of the dewatering flow contained non-DIIv1P constitutent concentrations." Please <br />explain how the 9 percent figure was determined. <br />