My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-11-15_PERMIT FILE - M2007069
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2007069
>
2007-11-15_PERMIT FILE - M2007069
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:18:25 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 1:20:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2007069
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
11/15/2007
Doc Name
Objection letter notice
From
DRMS
To
Centennial State Paving, Inc.
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.
/
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
High Line Carrell Co <br />P,rQti~tiioo <br />IioCikyE~d~Ot;MOB7 <br />Can Henrichs superintendent <br />49707 E Hwy 50 <br />Awndale, CO 87022 <br />(719~ti9~d107 <br />RECEIVED <br />November 8, 2007 <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Stmt, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />NOV 13 2007 <br />Olvlsion of Reclamation, <br />llAlning and Safety <br />~i~(~--L `~. <br />Dear Deb Zack: <br />The High Line Canal Co would like to oppose the Pheasant Run Gravel Pit permit #2007-069 as <br />planned, kx~ted at or near Section 32, Township 21 south, Range 60 west, 6"' Prime Meridian. We <br />would also request party status. We supported this application during the Puebb County zoning <br />process with some conditions. We have iwo major oonoems with the removal of so much material, will <br />that, cause an irxxease of seep water from the canal and will the removal of the material cause <br />destabilization of the banks and cause a wash out and loss of water? <br />We furthem~ore oppose this plan based on Rule 6.4.19 of page 149, because there is no agreement <br />between the plan proponents and the High Line Canal. The proposed plan would allow mining that <br />could affect the stability of the ditch, could increase the seepage from the ditch and could interfere with <br />the operations of the ditch. In order to negotiate such and agreement the plan proponents must: <br />a. Provide a stability analysis acceptable to the Ditch company that shows that their <br />proposed mining would not adversely impact the ditch stability or <br />b. Rebcate the canal <br />Also base on rule 3.1.6: <br />c. Agree to a no dewatering provision in order that the groundwater is not lowered and thus <br />would not result in inducing additional seepage from the ditch, <br />d. Submit plans acceptable to the High lane canal for any crossing or other activities with in <br />the dih;h easement and <br />e. Provide for adequate compensation for damages if any of their activities results in the <br />inability, or reduced ability, to deliver irrigation water to shareholders, and <br />f. Finally, stating that if such an agreement cannot be obtained, DRMS should restrict mining <br />as folkyws: i. No mining within 200 feet of the toe of the slope <br />at any point on each of the ditch banks, and <br />ii. No within 18 inches of the seasonal high water table, <br />and <br />iii No dewabering of groundwater on the property, and <br />iv. No access across the ditch except at the existing <br />crossings, and then only if such existing structures <br />are adequate for the loads, and <br />v. No activities or encroachments of any kind within <br />the ditch easement <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.