2016-09-14_PERMIT FILE - M2016010

• Permit No: M2016010
• IBM Index Class Name: PERMIT FILE
• Doc Date: 9/14/2016
• Doc Name: Request for Information
• From: Cheryl Kimble
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: AME
• Email Name: WHE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Ant.-
Cheryl L. Kimble
(owner of affected properties,4747 Little Turkey Creek Rd. and adjoining parcel 08-16-67, 7600000079
parcel, El Paso County Assessor)
Contact Information:
683 Grey Eagle Cir. S.
Colorado Springs, CO 80919 RECEIVED
Phone: [phone]
E-mail:[e-mail] cf EP 14 2016
LION OF RECLAMATION
Sept. 13, 2016 MR"AND SAFETY
Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety
1313 Sherman Street, Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
RE: Permit No. M2016010&"'
Ms.Amy Eschberger;
In the matter of Permit No. M2016010 for Transit Mlx, currently before the Colorado Division of
Reclamation, Mining and Safety, I am already a party with Carrie Bernstein of Alderman Bernstein as
my attorney.
I request that as soon as the recommendation and rationale are available from CDRMS concerning the
Permit No. M2016010,that both be provided by Fax to my attorney Carrie Bernstein at the Fax phone
number of 720-293-4712. We would also be happy to receive the information by e-mail:
Carrie Bernstein [e-mail]
Cheryl Kimble [e-mail]
In addition to the this request, I would like to support Nancy Reed's recent review of the adequacy and
futher ask why the Shall statement of CRS 34-32.5-115 (4)(e) that states:
"applicant provides an appropriate engineering evaluation that demonstrates that
such structures shall not be damaged by proposed construction materials
excavation operations" is not being applied to the structure of Little Turkey Creek Road.
The engineering evaluation for Little Turkey Creek Road does not demonstrate that the
proposed construction material excavation operations shall not damage Little Turkey Creek
Road. All it does is criticize the engineering of the road which is irrelevant to whether the
excavation operations will damage it. It does not state how the applicant shall prevent the
damage. Further, it fails the statutory mandatory nature of SHALL used in this statute.
The private rights of the easement owners for Little Turkey Creek Road are significantly
damaged by not treating the SHALL statement as imperative or mandatory. Nowhere in the
above statute does it imply that the applicant can simply dismiss their responsibility
because they feel the Stucture is not deserving of protection afforded by the statute.