My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE64812
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
700000
>
PERMFILE64812
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:10:42 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 8:34:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004078
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
3/23/2005
Doc Name
Review of Modified Proposal
From
DMG
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of IJatural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 <br />FAX: (303) 832-8106 <br />DMG has analyzed the new proposed setback distance from the edge of Highway 85 in the vicinity of <br />geotechnical borehole MW-03; this is the location of the Applicant's cross section C-C'. The results of the <br />DMG analyses are attached to this memo. DMG analysis no. 1 duplicates the Civil Resources' analysis, <br />and yields the same safety factor result. This analysis considers a 1:1 sloped pit wall; it is the DMG's <br />understanding that the Operator intends to mine at 1:1 as the pit perimeter is approached in order to <br />facilitate clay liner installation. However, as mentioned above, DMG will not regulate the slope of the pit <br />wall during active mining. DMG analysis no. 2 considers the same potential slope failure surface as <br />analysis no. 1, but models a vertical pit wall with a 100-foot setback from Highway 85. Interestingly, the <br />safety factor increases appreciably under the analysis no. 2 scenario, as compared to DMG analysis no, 1. <br />This may seem counter-intuitive, given the steeper pit wall under analysis no. 2 and the conventional <br />wisdom that shallower pit slopes are more stable. However, these analyses are designed to consider the <br />stability of the ground at the edge of Highway 85. In fact the slope in the vicinity of the assumed vertical <br />pit wall has a substantially lower safety factor than a 1:1 sloped pit wall, but this is an operational issue that <br />has no bearing on the stability of Highway 85. The physical reason that the vertical pit wall scenario is <br />more stable at the edge of the highway is that the weight of the sand and gravel on the assumed failure <br />surface increases the resisting force on that surface. <br /> Bill Owens <br /> Governor <br />DATE: Mazch 23, 2005 Russell George <br /> Executive Director <br />TO: Erlea CLOSby Ronald W. Cattany <br />Division DIrMOr <br /> Natural Resource Trustee <br />FROM: Allen Sorenson <br />RE: Review of Modified Proposal, Mining Setbacks from Permanent Valuable Structures, <br /> SW TKO Joint Venture, LLC, Lupton Lakes Pit, File No. M-2004-078 <br />The Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) engineering staff have completed a review of modified <br />stability analyses and proposed mining setbacks provided for the Lupton Lakes permit application. These <br />were provided as a letter and attachments dated March 22, 2005 from the Applicant's consultants, Civil <br />Resources, LLC. In accordance with DMG's discussions with Mark Reiner of Civil Resources, the mining <br />setbacks are established as horizontal distances measured from the toe of the mining slope to the various <br />structures located around the proposed pit. By establishing the setback as a distance from the toe of the <br />slope, DMG will not be in the position of having to regulate the pit wall slope angle. Also, in accordance <br />with the discussions between DMG and Civil Resources, lower effective friction angles for the weathered <br />claystone and sand and gravel strata were input to the analyses, as specified if the DMG memo dated Mazch <br />12, 2005. <br />DMG analysis no. 3 shows that there is a more critical failure surface relative to Highway 85 than the <br />failure surface analyzed in the applicant's submittal. However, the safety factor result for this more critical <br />failure surface is 1.08, which is still sufficient to assure that the proposed gravel pit will not impact the <br />COLORADO <br />D1~'l SION OF <br />MINERALS <br />GEOLOGY <br />0.ECLANATION•NINING <br />SAFETY•SCIENCE <br />Office of <br />Mined Land Reclamation <br />Office of <br />Active and Inactive Mines <br />Colorado <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.