My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003-04-04_REVISION - M1999034
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1999034
>
2003-04-04_REVISION - M1999034
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:55:54 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 8:40:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999034
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/4/2003
Doc Name
Objection Letter
From
Karen Topper
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
AM1
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.
/
3
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
Topper OI>jectioa <br />Amendment No.l - Jeroaimus Property <br />Permit # M-99-034 <br />The applicant's permit documentation includes a Geotechnical Stability Exhibit prepazed by <br />TuttleApplegate, Inc. The Slope Stability Evaluation, prepazed January 1999, is from the original <br />application. Item #4 on page 10 of the Geotechnical Stability Exhibit states "The analysis is based <br />on assumptions using soil properties that aze generally found in the South Platte River. Field <br />inspection of geologic anomalies by a professional is recommended." Tbe rules and regulations of <br />the Division of Minerals and Geology require that any mining within a 200-foot setback of a man- <br />made structwe show through engineering analysis that the mining will not cause damage. As noted <br />previously, the residence structwe and outbuilding on my property aze located approximately 40-feet <br />east of the Amendment No.l Area boundary, while the storage bazn is directly adjacent to the <br />property boundary. Adjacent to these structwes exist ow water supply and irrigation wells. The <br />mining plan proposes a minimum excavation setback of 35-feet from any adjacent property line. <br />Considering this setback, my structwes lie within a range of 35 to approximately 75 feet of the <br />excavation. An analysis of the swface contows on the applicant's mining plan map, Exhibit C-2, <br />indicates that at least 30-feet of material lie above the current lake level. With mining continuing <br />below the.water_line, the-resultant high_walLwill_be in.excess_of3.0-feet vertical_adjacent to.my <br />property line. The applicant has not demonstrated that an engineering analysis was conducted to <br />evaluate potential damage to my existing structwes, nor have these structures been identified in <br />Exhibit S -Permanent Man-Made Structwes. The applicant has not followed through with <br />recommendations provided by their consultant TuttleApplegate, Inc. in performing geologic field <br />inspections, nor have they used site specific geotechnical data in their modeling. <br />Lastly, the vegetation information included as Exhibit J contains a letter dated January 28, 2003 <br />from Andrea Vialpando of the Natwal Resowce Conservation Service. Under the heading <br />"Threatened and Endangered Species" on page 2, Ms. Vialpando indicates that "There aze a number <br />of protected species associated with riparian areas including Bald eagle and Preble's meadow <br />jumping mouse. We recommend that the Colorado Department of Wildlife be contacted to assess <br />the potential impact to these species." White the wildlife information included as Exhibit H includes <br />a letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated December 29, 2002, that letter makes no <br />mention of an evaluation of protected species as required under the Endangered Species Act. The <br />applicant has not demonstrated compliance with this Act or implemented the recommendations of <br />the Natwal Resowce Conservation Service. <br />In conclusion, I request that the Division of Minerals and Geology reject the application for <br />Amendment No.l - Jeronimus Property to Permit # M-99-034 subm_itted_by Aggregate Industries - <br />WCR, Inc. on the basis of 1) inconsistencies in factual information contained in the permit <br />application documents, 2) likely injury to decreed water rights, 3) inadequate evaluation of water <br />quality impacts, 4) lack of adequate slope stability evaluation, and 5) non-compliance with the <br />Endangered Species Act. Thank you for the opportunity of presenting my concerns and objections. <br />Again, I wish to be a registered party to futwe actions concerning this permit application. <br />Sincerely, <br />Karen Topper <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.