PERMFILE129522

• Permit No: M2001046
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 8/10/2001
• Doc Name: Adequacy Letter
• From: DMG
• To: Banks and Gesso LLC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

6.4.17 EXHIBIT O - Proof of Mailing of Notices to County Commissioners and Soil
Conservation District
Adequate as submitted.
6.4.18 EXHIBIT R -Proof of Filin¢ with County Clerk and Recorder
Adequate as submitted.
6.4.19 EXHIBIT S -Permanent Man-Made Structures
The application indicates damage agreements between the owners of the various
structures and the applicant will be forthcoming. If notarized damage agreements
between the applicant and the structure owners are not received by our office prior to the
decision date, new maps illustrating the 200 foot set-backs must be submitted.
Alternatively, an appropriate engineering evaluation demonstrating such structures will
not be damaged can be provided to our office for review and approval. However, if the
agreements, maps or engineering evaluations are not submitted by the decision date, the
application may be denied.
6.5 GEOTECHNICAL STABILITY EXHIBIT
The mine plan indicates that the pits will be "dry mined" with a near vertical face in all
areas. The proposed plan shows the mining limits to be within 50 feet of numerous
structures including concrete irrigation ditches, utility lines, oil and gas collection lines
and tanks, Weld County Road 28, irrigation wells, stock fences, etc. When there is
potential for off-site impacts due to failure of a geologic structure or constructed earthen
structure, Rule 6.5(3) requires appropriate geotechnical and stability analysis to
demonstrate that these areas will be protected. In this case, it certainly appears that the
potential exists for failure to occur both during mining and possibly after reclamation is
completed. Therefore, the division is requiring the applicant to provide a stability
analysis for the highwall during mining and the backfilled highwall after mining is
competed. This analysis should provide a Factor of Safety of 1.25 or better using a
seismic failure coefficient of 0.025. Please remember to account for the fluctuating
phreatic surface in your calculations as well as the nature of the material that may be used
to backfill the highwalls.
This concludes the Division's preliminary adequacy review of this application, Our
office will continue to review the application and if additional concerns arise, you will be
notified immediately. Please remember that the decision date for this application is
August 29, 2001. As previously mentioned if you are unable to provide satisfactory
responses to any inadequacies prior to this date, it will be your responsibility to request
an extension of time to allow for continued review of this application. If there are
still unresolved issues when the decision date arrives and no extension has been
requested, the application will be denied. If you have any questions, please contact me at
[phone]