Laserfiche WebLink
mine. The ditch company feels the integrity of the canal will be in jeopardy if the <br />application is approved. <br />Plumb Irrigation Company - Also a concern of the ditch company is the proposed <br />25' mining set-back from the Plumb Ditch. <br />Plumb Irrigation Company - In reading the regulation, it appears that the Plumb <br />Ditch Company should have an agreement with the gravel operator before submittal <br />of the application. There is no contract signed or any contract in progress to date. <br />Division Response <br />The questions raised by the above comments are related to Rule 6.4.19(a)-(b) which <br />addresses mining operations that will adversely affect the stability of any significant, <br />valuable and permanent man-made structure located within two hundred (200) feet of the <br />affected land. The Applicant may provide a damage waiver signed by the person(s) having <br />an interest in the structure. If an agreement cannot be reached, the Applicant shall provide <br />an appropriate engineering evaluation that demonstrates that such structure shall not be <br />damaged by activities occurring at the mining operation. <br />The Applicant submitted an engineering analysis which demonstrates that the Plumb Ditch <br />will not be adversely affected by a setback distance of twenty five (25) feet. The Division <br />concurred with all of the analytical methods and assumptions contained in the engineering <br />evaluation. <br />The Division is satisfied with the Applicant's proposed setback distance from the Plumb <br />Ditch. <br />B. ISSUES RAISED THAT THE DIVISION BELIEVES ARE NOT WITHIN THE <br />JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION OR BOARD <br />1. Market Demand <br />The following objectors raised concerns about the need for another sand and gravel <br />operation in the area: <br />• Ron Baker <br />Division Response <br />Issues relating to land use are regulated by Weld County, not the Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety. <br />2. Air Quality <br />The following objectors raised concerns about odor control: <br />• Ron Baker <br />7