My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-03-16_PERMIT FILE - M2015008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2015008
>
2015-03-16_PERMIT FILE - M2015008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:58:24 PM
Creation date
3/16/2015 3:47:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2015008
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
3/16/2015
Doc Name
Opposition to application approval
From
Kirkland Contruction
To
DRMS
Email Name
PSH
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
C-rado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, #215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />ARE: Kirkland Construction 111 Permit Application <br />ATTN: Peter Hays <br />Dear Mr. Hays, <br />RECEIVED <br />IAR 1 b 2015 <br />pIVISION C t, ^CLAMATION <br />IRMC AND ZWEW <br />I am writing in opposition of the approval of Kirkland's 111 application for the Blue Valley Pit. I do <br />support industry and mining; however, I don't support processes which subject unfair competition due <br />to the ability of a Company to receive a Special Operations Permit, when other, already permitted <br />sources are nearby, have been compliant and able to provide the necessary materials. I don't believe the <br />intent of a 111 Special Operations Permit is to hinder local economies and basically prevent others from <br />having an opportunity to provide materials to a project. <br />Our Company has been in the aggregate business in Colorado for 48 years and during this time we have <br />submitted, completed and complied with all the rules and regulations of DRMS. We have also converted <br />some 110 Limited Impact Permit to 112s because we believe in the processes in place by DRMS and felt <br />obligated to become compliant. We are involved in 3 aggregate operations within 5 miles of this project <br />and there are 2 others we are not involved in, also within 5 miles. Our market area is quite small, our <br />volumes are not large and we believe allowing the approval of Kirkland's 111 Special Operations Permit <br />constricts our ability as well as the other 2 pit operators to compete on this project. <br />We also would question whether a 3 year permit is short term and express that this project has been in <br />the works for over 6 years, thus allowing Blue Valley Ranch (The surface owner) enough time and vision <br />to 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 and according to Kirkland's application; they intend to pump and pipe water from the Blue River to <br />the job site. This pumping area and piping should be included as part of the affected areas and at this <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.