PERMFILE137059

• Permit No: M2004067
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 10/24/2005
• Doc Name: 4th Adequacy Response
• From: Banks and Gesso LLC
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

MMRR Quarry, M-2004-067
Response to Sept. 20, 2005 Adequacy Review
October 24, 2005
Page 4
Based on the assumption that the Silver Dollar Metropolitan District has an
ownership interest in the light poles and is thereby empowered to enter into a
structure agreement, we have contacted the District with a proposed agreement
and an offer to discuss terms in greater detail as appropriate. A copy of
correspondence sent to the District, along with the certified mail receipt, is
enclosed with this letter. To date, we have been unable to obtain an agreement.
The engineering analysis conducted by Lyman Henn, Inc., submitted to the DMG
on August 19, 2005 and incorporated herein by reference, considered the
structural stability of light poles. Blast Designations A1, P1, and Q1 were
intended to represent worst-case scenarios relative to the closest point of
overhead power/street lights during access road construction (A1), processing
area construction (P1), and quarry production blasting (Q1). These calculations
were based on the minimum distance to any structure in the category analyzed.
The locations of facilities were field verified prior to the engineering analysis, with
the intent of identifying the closest light poles and overhead power structures to
blasting, regardless of ownership.
The results and conclusions of the Lyman Henn, Inc. engineering analysis apply
to the light poles at issue. Questions regarding the ownership of the light poles
should not have any bearing on the Division's determination that the engineering
analysis satisfies the requirements of Rule 6.4.19. The light poles will not be
damaged according to the accepted engineering analysis.
Please note that the Applicant has expressed its preference for reaching an
agreement with Silver Dollar Metropolitan District. If the structure owner
responds to the offer of an agreement within a reasonable length of time, the
Applicant will continue to honor this offer regardless of prior compliance with Rule
6.4.19 by engineering analysis.
E. Exhibit A -Legal Description: Per Rule 6.4.1 the Applicant will need to provide the correct
latitude and longitudinal coordinates of access point "C". Please provide.
The Applicant's representative has reviewed the latitude and longitude data for
access point "C". Based on USGS Quadrangle Map data for the 7.5' Black Hawk
Quad, the location of access point "C" is described as 39.76063 (deg) N,
105.41923 (deg) W. It appears that a label or some other map feature internal to
the site was inadvertently captured in the prior calculation of these coordinates.
The position of access point 'C' has been accurately located on all map exhibits.
F. Application Form -Per Rule 1.4.1 (1), please provide a revised Regular 112 Application form
which clearly lists the permitted and affected land acreage to be permitted. Attached are two
copies of a Regular 112 Application Form. Also, please clarify the changes in permitted acreage
and affected land acreage under access points "A", "8", and "C". Please provide.