Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 <br /> Mr. Eric Scott <br /> August 16, 2018 <br /> EXHIBITS-Permanent Man-Made Structures(Rule 6.4.19): The information provided does not distinguish between <br /> required notice to property owners within 200'of the proposed operation, and structure owners within 200'that were <br /> provided damage waiver agreements. Please describe how the appropriate notice/waiver information was sent out. <br /> I attached a table showing the structures and the property notification and the return receipts. <br /> No proof of structure damage waivers sent was provided for Xcel or Century Link. It is unclear from the information <br /> provided to DRMS at this time that CDOT has been properly noticed, or provided with a damage waiver agreement <br /> for structures within 200 <br /> See attached signed Xcel Structure Agreement and Century Link return receipts. CDOT was notified and a <br /> return receipt is attached along with an email correspondence with Tim Bilobran. <br /> The geotechnical stability assessment provided is internally inconsistent in several areas and inconsistent with the <br /> provided mining and reclamation plans. Inconsistency was noted with respect to the depth of mining in the two main <br /> mined cells, if mining will take place in saturated material, and maximum mined depth of 10 feet in the 'second cell" <br /> (SE area?). The provided assessment does not consider any topsoil or overburden stockpile loading, however the <br /> mining plan states that topsoil and overburden stockpiles will be placed along the perimeter of the site(these <br /> stockpiles should be shown on the mine plan map). <br /> The mine plan map incorrectly shows stockpiles around the perimeter. <br /> Please revise the geotechnical stability report for internal consistency and rerun the analysis where needed to <br /> demonstrate that no adjacent structures will be impacted from the proposed mining activity. <br /> The stability analysis is accurate. <br /> Additional Information:Any letters from other commenting agencies/entities received by the Division to date have <br /> been included with this correspondence for you to review. <br /> This concludes the Division's preliminary adequacy review of this application. This letter shall not be construed to <br /> mean that there are no other technical deficiencies in your application. Other issues may arise as additional <br /> information is supplied. Please remember that the decision date for this amendment application is August 30, 2078. <br /> As previously mentioned, if you are unable to provide satisfactory responses to any inadequacies prior to this date, it <br /> will be your responsibility to request an extension of time to allow for continued review of this application. If there are <br /> still unresolved issues when the decision date arrives and no extension has been requested, the application will be <br /> denied. If you have any questions,please contact me at(303)866-3567 x8 740. <br />