2004-04-26_REVISION - M1978056 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

facilities. Regardless, since there is good empirical evidence that temporary stability exists for O.SH:1 V slopes, we would request the Division consider a 30 day moratorium between cutting the slopes and establishing interim stability of 1.25H: ] V slopes. This would provide ample time for the complete resource to be recovered at O.SH:1 V along the utility location (acknowledging the 20 foot buffer from the actual line). Prior to excavating along such utilities, the line will be located via UNCC or Utility locates and a line of site staking made evident along the line. Aline of site mazking set 20 feet from the marked line will follow to define the upper limits of the cut slope. Both supervisors and equipment operators will have a visible 1.25H:1 V slope (and O.SH:1 V slope where not otherwise restricted) to view periodically prior to making the cut. Additionally, the depth of the pit will be determined when the pit wall is within 50 feet horizontal of the upper limits of the cut slope, as marked in the field by line of site staking. Based upon pit depth at that time, toe of slope distances to effect 1.25H:1 V and O.SH:1 V distances will be made and monitored during excavation. The interim and final slopes will be measured following establishment to assure slope angle conformance. Otherwise, where no utilities exist, along or outside of 20 feet from a utility, or as otherwise agreed with an oil and gas producer, extraction will occur to O.SH:1 V without these limitations. Agreements with Matrix Energy, LLC; Merit Energy Company; and Duke Energy Company are attached. The agreements allow for extraction activities to within ]0 feet of lines. Weld County regulations require an additional 10 feet from those easement lines, which is why the 20 foot separation is proposed. Varca Companies, [nc. will honor a 25 foot separation from well heads and proceed to extract as agreed with these oil and gas producers around well head facilities. The establishment of these buffers is previously shown on Exhibit C -Mining Plan Map. To be clear as to the nature of all gas lines in the proximity of the permit azea, we contacted Mark McPhee, Duke Energy Field Services and received the following information: Lines are three (3) inch carbon steel pipe with 0.156 walls carrying 180-220 #psi with a tensil strength of 42,000 psi. 4. The original Extraction Plan Map, Drawing 2 of 3, Dated 10/20/77 specifies that no excavation or processing of sand and gravel shall be permitted nearer than 10 feet to the boundary of adjacent property, easement or 'irrigation ditch right of way, nor nearer than 125 feet to any existing residence, unless by written agreement the owner or owners of such adjacent property consent to a lesser distance. Please indicate if the applicant will incorporate this standard in the proposed amendment application and continue to follow this standard during all future mining and excavation at the Durham Pit. Processed material will not occur within 10 feet of property surcounding the permit boundary, nor nearer than 125 feet to any existing residence. We believe this is consistent with the original intent of the permit, and consistent with the approved Weld County USR. Stockpiling does and will continue to occur over natural gas lines and easements within the permit boundary, and has, since the on-set of operations by the previous operator in 1984. There is no expressed concern by these owners of past or proposed activity proposed under this amendment and as conducted over the previous two decades of operations. 5. The applicant has indicated (and shown on the Exhibit C -Mining Plan Map) that there aze 57.36 acres of extraction remaining in Tracts A, B, Bc C. The applicant has also specified that reclamation will be concurrent with mining to limit the total disturbance to be reclaimed at any one time. In conformance with Rule 6.4.4(d), please clarify the maximum disturbance to be Varra Companies, Inc. M1978-056 Durham Sand & Gravel Pit - 2003 Amendment - Monday 26 April 2004 reply to correspondence from the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology of 6 January 2004.