Laserfiche WebLink
Page 5 of 6 <br />Response: We attempted to reach an agreement with all man-made structure owners within <br />200 feet of the affected land. Below is a summary of the status of each agreement: <br />• Xcel Energy: We did not get a response to our request. Attached is a copy of the request <br />sent to Xcel along with a copy of the certified mailing receipt showing it was mailed and <br />received by Xcel (Attachment 14). <br />• Weld County: A copy of a signed agreement is attached (Attachment 15). <br />• TowerCo: We do not have a signed agreement with TowerCo. Attached is <br />correspondence that Tetra Tech and Lafarge has with TowerCo along with our certified <br />mailing receipts as documentation that we attempted to reach an agreement <br />(Attachment 16). <br />• Tim and Jeanne Iverson: A copy of the signed agreement is attached (Attachment 17). <br />• City of Greeley: We do not have a signed agreement with the City of Greeley. Attached <br />is correspondence that Tetra Tech and Lafarge have had with the City of Greeley along <br />with our certified mailing receipt as documentation that we attempted to reach an <br />agreement (Attachment 18). <br />• Boyd Irrigation Company: We do not have a signed agreement with the Boyd Irrigation <br />Company. Attached is correspondence that Tetra Tech and Lafarge have had with the <br />Boyd Irrigation Company along with our certified mailing receipt as documentation that <br />we attempted to reach an agreement (Attachment 19). <br />Please clarify if Lafarge is continuing to pursue signed structure agreements with TowerCo, City of <br />Greeley and Boyd Irrigation Company or if the Applicant is relying on the engineering evaluation to <br />demonstrate the structures will not be damaged by mining activities. <br />Question #38 was answered satisfactorily by the Applicant in the April 29, 2011 response. <br />6.5 Geotechnical Stability Exhibit <br />39. Division staff is reviewing the stability analysis prepared for the Iverson Mine. An additional adequacy <br />review letter may follow pertaining to the geotechnical stability section of the application. <br />Response: We received your correspondence dated April 19, 2011 regarding the Slope Stability <br />Analysis. As you requested in your comments, we updated the slope stability analysis for the <br />communication tower to include surcharge loads imposed by the stockpiles and tower. The <br />attached results have also been adjusted to indicate the mining depths anticipated near the <br />tower location. The results of the model show that the Factor of Safety is at 1.3 at the tower <br />which exceeds the DRMS requirements. <br />Please provide the Division with the stockpile and tower surcharge loads and document the source of <br />the surcharge loads used in the revised slope stability analysis for the communication tower so the <br />Division can duplicate the cross section for verification. <br />5