Laserfiche WebLink
• Bookcliff Conservation District:USPS Tracking Number 9405503699300219175185 <br /> • The Town of Silt:USPS Tracking Number 9405503699300219175178 <br /> • Garfield County BOCC.Fedex Tracking Number 776549381170 <br /> 6.4.19 EXHIBIT S -Permanent Man-made Structures <br /> 75. CDOT structure agreement is for a previous application (wrong permit number) and is not an <br /> original. Please submit an updated structure agreement with original notary signatures. *Note, <br /> given the time deadline a revised engineering evaluation may be more expedient in the <br /> meantime.Submit proof a new agreement was attempted and then a revised engineering <br /> evaluation which includes 1-70 and CR 346. <br /> An updated copy of the CDOT Structure Agreement is included in Attachment B. <br /> 6.5 GEOTECHNICAL STABILITY EXHIBIT <br /> 76. The Geotechnical Stability Analysis failed to address all of the structures for which a completed <br /> damage compensation agreements were absent.An evaluation needs to be included for CDOT <br /> features until updated agreement can be obtained. <br /> Attachment C includes a copy of the Slope Stability Evaluation that addresses Section 6.5 Geotechnical <br /> Exhibit information. The overall conclusions are that all permanent structures listed in Table 1 should <br /> not be impacted nor damaged by the proposed mining activities.A copy of the CDOT Structures <br /> Agreement is included in Attachment C. <br /> 77. Information presented within Figure 1 and 2 is illegible and failed to provide appropriate <br /> engineering evaluations for which each structure would not be damaged by the activities of the <br /> proposed operation, pursuant to 6.3.12(b). <br /> Attachment B includes a copy of the CDOT Structures Agreement for the fencing,frontage road,and 1- <br /> 70 Westbound lanes. Figure 1 depicts the results from the slope stability model for the west section of <br /> the property and determined that the theoretical failure surface is at least 78 feet from the nearest <br /> permanent facility with a FS(FOS)of 2.0,greater than the minimum FOS of 1.5.Figure 2 depicts the <br /> results from the slope stability model for the east section of the property and determined that the <br /> theoretical failure surface is at least 77 feet from the nearest permanent facility with a FOS of 1.9 <br /> Figure 3 depicts the results from the slope stability model for the north section of the property and <br /> determined that the theoretical failure surface is at least 75 feet from the nearest permanent facility <br /> with a FOS of 2.1. <br /> 78. Explicitly state the highwall height,slope gradients and the distance from which mining can <br /> occur from a feature while maintaining the specified FOS. <br /> The highwall height for the west section is depicted on Figure 1 at 21.905 feet,for the east section, <br /> depicted on Figure 2,at 21.978 feet, and for the north section,depicted on Figure 3,at 20.967 feet. <br /> The slope gradients for all three sections are at 3H:1V. The resulting FOS are 2.02, 1.97,and 2.08 for <br /> the west,east,and north sections,respectively. <br /> a. Note that both CDOT roads and the URSA gas and water lines are considered critical <br /> structures and a FOS of 1.5 or higher is required. <br /> Noted and the modeled FOS is higher than the required 1.5. <br /> 79. Does the engineering evaluation model take into account that slopes will be wet mined and will <br /> remain inundated throughout life of mine. If so please explicitly state this was accounted for in <br /> 14 <br />