REV17608

• Permit No: M1977193
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 1/27/1997
• Doc Name: THE AGGREGATE SOURCE AMENDMENT APPLICATION OUTSTANDING ADEQUACY CONCERNS PN M-77-193
• From: DMG
• To: TEZAK HEAVY EQUIPMENT CO INC
• Type & Sequence: AM3
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

- • • iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
999
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depadmenl of Natural Resources
131 }Sherman St., Room 215 ~rr~~
Denver, Colorado 80203 II
Phone: [phone]
FA%:1303183?-8106
DEPARTMENT OF
Janua 27, 1997 Nt~TURAL
~r RESOURCES
Edward J
Tezak
Jr Ror Romer
.
,
.
Tezak Heavy Equipment Company, Inc. Governor

201 Tunnel Drive lames S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Canon City, CO 81212 Michaels Long
Division Director
RE: T.H.E. Aggregate Source -Amendment Application -Outstanding Adequacy
Concerns Permit No. M-77-193
Dear Mr. Tezak:
On January 14, 1997 Mr. Ken HIco met with me, Jim Dillie, and Bruce Humphries of the
Division to discuss outstanding adequacy issues for your proposed amendment; application.
To date, there remain 11 outstanding issues. The Division has requested a n~sponse from
T.H.E., Inc. by 5:00 P.M. January 31, 1997 in anticipation of a February 7, 7.997 decision
date. As was summarized in the meeting, we still expect a response by Janu;sry 31, 1997;
however, the February 7, 1997 decision date will be extended at least 20 days.
Since more than 120 days will have lapsed if the decision date is extended we suggest that
you waive your right to a decision within 120 days. Please send your waiver in writing.
Listed below are the outstanding adequacy concerns as discussed during the January 14,
1997 meeting with Mr. HIco. For your convenience, they are listed according to the same
number used in my orieinal adeauacv letter dated November 8. 1996.
2. The Division will require evidence of a properly executed agreement between
Tezak Heavy Equipment Company, Inc. and the City of Canon C1.ty regarding
compensation for damages to the two (2) existing water lines that will be
covered by the proposed new haul road. Please refer to Rule 6.3.12 for specific
language that should be incorporated into the agreement. The information
submitted on December 23, 1996 at the informal conference is helpful but is
not adequate to demonstrate compliance with Rule 6.3.12.
3. The operator will need to supply an agreement which demonstrates compliance
with Rule 6.3.12 for the maintenance shop and office building which are
depicted on Exhibit C as being outside of the permit area but wi~;hin 200 feet
of the affected land boundary.
5. In order to demonstrate compliance with Rule 6.5 (Geotechnical Stability
Exhibit) the Division requests that T.H.E., Inc. supply a stability analysis of
the reclaimed highwall that demonstrates an adequate factor of safety for the
post-mining land uses, rangeland and wildlife habitat.
The engineering designs for the proposed haul road received on Lecember 18,
1996 do not adequately demonstrate how stormwater runoff along the haul
road corridor will be managed. Please provide cross sectional designs for