My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-07-06_PERMIT FILE - M2016010 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2016010
>
2016-07-06_PERMIT FILE - M2016010 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/26/2020 10:57:26 PM
Creation date
7/8/2016 8:30:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2016010
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
7/6/2016
Doc Name
Objection Letter
From
Cheryl L. Kimble
To
DRMS
Email Name
AME
WHE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
offsite damage 3.1.9(1)to the road beyond 200 feet of the affected lands. How will the <br /> stability of the road be maintained throughout the mining/reclamation phase and beyond <br /> especially if reclamation is done with less absorbent vegetation 6.4.3(e)? Making the road <br /> unstable, less useable, and unsafe is an ongoing half century plus burden to the easement <br /> owners. How will emergency services be provided when the road (only access) is blocked <br /> given there is no helicopter service possible. <br /> 3) No setbacks for the road were discussed in the diagrams or blasting plan to protect the <br /> stability of the road. <br /> 4) No safety zone for blasting was specified and it is documented that flyrock can travel a mile <br /> or more. What is the radius of the flyrock zone and the safety zone? What are the <br /> vibration standards and flyrock standards that must be met? Even using a % mile radius for <br /> safety, the road is always impacted and often homes including mine are at risk. Using a 1 <br /> mile radius is even more pervasive. <br /> 5) There is no evidence that a pre-blasting baseline will be made for properties within a mile <br /> radius of the affected lands concerning the structure and foundations of homes,the viability <br /> of existing or future wells, or the risk of flyrock. There is also no evidence that there will be <br /> monitoring of vibration or flyrock that will protect properties that are in the mile radius of <br /> affected lands. My home is highly subject to damage as it is made with stryofoam blocks <br /> filled with cement(basement and two stories). It will not do well with blasting vibrations. <br /> I also in the future may need to dig a deep well instead of the current shallow well. <br /> Additionally, it appears from the DWR letter(dated April 21, 2016 from Caleb Foy, P.E.) to CDRMS that <br /> no water detention facilities are allowed in the Fountain Creek Watershed without a permit and must <br /> not cause material injury. Deadman Creek is in the Fountain Creek Watershed and there are two <br /> municipalities or quasi-municipalities relying on water from wells close to the affected lands. These are <br /> Red Rock Valley Water and the City of Fountain (which gets 30%of its summer water from wells on <br /> Keeton Road close to Red Rock Valley Water wells). Red Rock Valley Water supplies 83 homes and <br /> Fountain serves over 27,000 residents. As happened in the blasting of NORAD,the 1L Ranch lost all <br /> water and it has never recovered. This is a concerning issue for all the water users including the almost <br /> 200 property owners within 2 miles like myself that could experience a similar situation with no feasible <br /> remedy. Was the city of Fountain contacted that it might experience de-watering or contamination with <br /> its wells? <br /> I intend to remain a party. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Cheryl L. Kihible <br /> cc: <br /> Carrie S. Bernstein, 101 University Boulevard,Suite 350, Denver, CO 80206 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.