My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-03-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M2015008 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Minerals
>
M2015008
>
2015-03-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M2015008 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:58:08 PM
Creation date
3/9/2015 3:18:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2015008
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
3/9/2015
Doc Name
Opposition to Pemit Application
From
Kirkland Construction
To
DRMS
Email Name
PSH
AJW
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
olorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, #215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RE: Kirkland Construction 111 Permit Application <br />ATTN: Peter Hays /Tony Waldron <br />Dear Mr. Hays and Mr. Waldron, <br />q--- 6) <br />I am a land owner and business owner of Grand County and am in opposition of the proposed 111 <br />Permit Application filed by Kirkland Construction. One of my businesses is Leaseholder and DRMS 112 <br />Permit holder on the Yust Pit (M -2000 -014). <br />Our family has been in the aggregate business for 35 years and during this time we have submitted, <br />completed and complied with all the rules and regulations of DRMS. We have also converted our 110 <br />Limited Impact Permit to a 112 because we believe in the processes in place by DRMS and felt obligated <br />to become compliant. Our market area is quite small, our volumes are not large and we believe allowing <br />the approval of Kirkland's 111 Special Operations Permit constricts our ability to compete on this <br />project. <br />We also would debate the a 3 year permit is not short term and also that this project has been in the <br />works for over 6 years, thus allowing Blue Valley Ranch (The surface owner) enough time and vision to <br />have come forward in time to file for a 112 permit. Obviously the permitting requirements are more <br />extensive for a 112 than a 111 but in this case the impacts to the local economy and also the <br />neighborhood are similar to a 112 type operation. <br />We are also concerned that while "30 acres, plus or minus" is what is submitted in the application, Blue <br />Valley Ranch has gained approval for mineral extraction from Colorado State Lands Board for 395 acres <br />for this project. At the very least, we need to make sure that all affected areas are included in the 30 <br />acres but we are also concerned that this could be the start of another longer term application. We <br />realize that there can be no succession or increases in affected areas using the 111 but it still a concern <br />and if denied, this situation could not become an issue. <br />We do not feel it is the intent of DRMS Board or Staff that the 111 Permit Application process should <br />eliminate already permitted sources who have been compliant under the stricter 110 and 112 Permit <br />processes from being competitive on supplying materials to the Highway 9 Project but this application <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.