Laserfiche WebLink
i . <br /> <br />• • <br />PARCEL, MAURO, HULTIN & SPAANSTRA <br />Mr. David Berry <br />Page 2 <br />October 2, 1986 <br />applicable response and/or cross-reference to the appropriate <br />attachments. <br />Comment: <br />Exhibit C - Pre-mining Plan Map <br />1) The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board may deny <br />any application to mine where the stability of any <br />significant, man-made structure within 200 feet of <br />the affected land may be affected by the mining <br />operation except where an agreement exists between <br />the structure owner and the operator to account for <br />any damage to that structure. <br />The following structures appear to be within 200 feet of <br />the proposed or current affected land and damage seems <br />possible. <br />1. Arthur Ditch <br />2. Buildings to the north of the permit area <br />3. Power Line(s) <br />4. Adjacent Public Roads <br />5. Mountain States Cable <br />6. Colorado & Southern Railroad <br />Please pt:ovide documentation that agreements exist to <br />account i'or damage to the structures or that the owners <br />of the structures agree with the proposed setbacks. <br />Response• <br />The revised Mining Plan (Exhibit D) provides for backfillinq <br />the highwalls on the south and east of the existing pit to a <br />slope of SH:1V during the initial operational phases of the <br />re-opened pit. Further pit excavation will maintain that <br />slope as the I>it perimeter approaches the property line. The <br />5H:lV slope h<is been approved in both the original Limited <br />Impact Permit and the Regular 112 Permit as a stable post <br />mining configuration. Given the maintenance of such a pit <br />configuration during both the operation and reclamation phases <br />as contemplatE~d in this technical revision, we believe that <br />