Laserfiche WebLink
35. Attached is a copy of review comments from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Please <br />respond. <br />The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers inspected the permit area and cleared it of its concerns, per <br />i correspondence of 30 March 2004, as attached. <br />6.4.19 EXHIBTT S -Permanent Klan-made Strnctnres <br />36. VCI has proposed mining within 200 feet of gas wells, gas lines, and associated gas <br />structures. Based upon review comments from Allen Sorenson, the Division requests that VCI a) <br />consider establishing larger setback distances from the man-made structures (particularly <br />pipelines, gas lines, gas wells, gas tanks, and other associated features) than the 10 feet cursently <br />proposed and should reconsider the efficacy of making an enforceable permit commitment to <br />maintain the excavation slope at no steeper than 1.25H: 1 V, and b) commit to backfilling the <br />excavated pit slopes in the vicinity of man-made structures to the final reclamation grade as soon <br />as possible following mining in a particular area. <br />The utility companies in question approved a 10 foot set back, however, our application will <br />result in a minimum set back from lines of 20 feet, and 25 feet from well heads. We replied to <br />this concern in consultation with both a civil engineer and qualified geologist, as indicated in part <br />3 of this reply. It is not our intention to circumvent the Division's concerns, rather to <br />accommodate some measure of recovery of the valuable resource lying to within O.SH:1 V of <br />these oil and gas lines, noting that empirical stability does exist in the short term at these <br />configurations, while assuring an expedient concurrent backfill of the slope to long term stable <br />configurations, as previously stated in part 3 of this reply. We believe it is important, financially <br />and environmentally to conserve the resource and extract it prior to development of the location. <br />Our effort are to effect this, with reasonable caution for the matter at hand. We believe our <br />proposal in part 3 of this reply offers an acceptable compromise to the Division's concerns, which <br />we share. <br />37. Attached are November 21, 2003 review comments from Allen Sorenson. Please address. <br />The previously reference repoR and reply to part 3 of this report, including information supported <br />by C.G.R.S.,as indicated. <br />Varna Companies, Inc. M19~8-056 Durham Sand & Gravel Pit - 2003 Amendment - I S <br />Monday 26 Apri12004 reply to correspondence from the Colorado Division of <br />Minerals and Geology of 6 January 2004. <br />