Laserfiche WebLink
s - <br /> CRS Title 34-32.5-115 Action by board—appeals <br /> (4)ln the determination of whether the board or the office shall grant a permit to an operator,the <br /> applicant must comply with the requirements of this article and 24-4-105 (7), CRS. The board or office <br /> shall not deny any permit except on one or more of the following grounds: <br /> (d)The proposed mining operation,the reclamation program,or the proposed future use is contrary to <br /> the laws or regulations of this state or the United States, including but not limited to all federal, state, <br /> and local permits, licenses,and approvals,as applicable to the specific operation. <br /> Per CRS 34-32.5-103. (1), Little Turkey Creek road and the recorded easement access (for ingress and <br /> egress)through the quarry in section 16 by the properties in sections 7,8, 17,9,and 4, constitute <br /> "affected land". The application is to include private ways and roads by statute. Section C and D of the <br /> application do not acknowledge the existence of Little Turkey Creek Rd. through section 16 and beyond <br /> or address the"trespass" or burden on the recorded easement crossing section 16 on Little Turkey <br /> Creek Rd. The number of properties affected with "interested persons" is 36 in section 7,8, and 17 <br /> known as Eagles Nest and 13 properties In sections 9 and 4 known as Bauer Ranch. This affects a total <br /> of 49 properties. I have two of those properties. Little Turkey Creek Rd. is the ONLY access to these <br /> properties. <br /> Sections C and D of M2016010 indicate that access through section 16 will be prohibited during blasting <br /> and when there is a blasting error. This timeframe could be as short as a half hour or as long as long as a <br /> day. That constitutes a trespass on the recorded easement. Regarding Little Turkey Creek Rd. and the <br /> easement,there are several areas where the blasting impact could cause land and rock slides that are <br /> not addressed in the application. Also blasting is restricted from 100 feet from the Little Turkey Creek <br /> Stream and while the road is often by the stream,this is not always the case. Blasting could be on or <br /> very near the road. This should be studied by a geotechnical expert or a road engineer. The other <br /> impact to the easement and road is the flooding and erosion caused by the quarry removing vegetation <br /> and recontouring the land. The hydrology presented in the application is knowingly based on airport <br /> rainfall which is not representative of section 16. It appears 10 year impoundments are designed <br /> instead of hundred year. A study by Colorado Division of Water Resources hydrology and <br /> hydrogeologic experts is needed as a second opinion for the affects of the runoff on the road as well as <br /> into the stream which is near the road in section 16 especially since the quarry is predicted to be 50 or <br /> 55 years. That makes hundred year flooding very likely. <br /> Damage to Wells/Property Value <br /> Nancy and Charles Reed have described the issues of damage to wells and property value that I agree <br /> with entirely. William Sheaves has provided a list of parties and interested persons with properties and <br /> wells within 2 miles of the proposed quarry of which I am one. I agree entirely with his list based on my <br /> agreement with concerns and objections raised by Jerry P. Moore concerning hydrology, hydrogeology, <br /> and geotechnical issues. Also, my well's (Permit No. 167875--) permitted use was incorrectly stated in <br /> the application as"household" and is in fact"domestic" and is so listed in the well search for the <br /> Colorado Division of Water Resources. <br /> Damage to Wildlife and Habitat <br /> I agree entirely with the wildlife and other ecological assessments provided by Professor James <br /> Enderson and find that his assessment is consistent with my experience since 1991 to present for that <br />