My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-11-27_REVISION - M1983035
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1983035
>
2018-11-27_REVISION - M1983035
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 2:23:21 PM
Creation date
11/28/2018 8:37:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983035
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/27/2018
Doc Name
Request For Succession Of Operator
From
Schmidt Construction Company
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
SO2
Email Name
TC1
MAC
BJC
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.
/
13
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
Mark A. Heifner <br />37 East Colorado Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80210-3105 • (303) 777-3371 or (303) 906-8096 <br />November 27, 2018 <br />Tim Cazier <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />Room 215 <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RE: Succession of Operator application for Vollmer Pit, El Paso County <br />Permit No.: M-1983-035 <br />Dear Tim, <br />RECEIVED <br />NOV 2 11018 <br />WSION OF RECLAMATION, <br />MINING AND SAFETY <br />Please find two copies of an application for succession of operator from Schmidt Construction Co. to Turkey <br />Canon Quarry Inc. for this operation. The applicants have waived their right to a decision in 30 days because a <br />few items concerning structure agreements are still outstanding and because the Division will need to <br />determine a reclamation cost to provide an amount for a proper bonding of the site. <br />Included are copies of the 12 completed structure agreements of the 58 offered. I believe there is at least one <br />more yet to be sent in. It appears that about half of the 58 never even got to the recipients because they never <br />picked them up at the post office - a real problem when return receipts are attached. I recommend mailing <br />only certified and using tracking numbers to prove they received the packet. Everybody gets it and the <br />tracking information is far better than a return receipt, some of which were never received even though the <br />information was delivered according to tracking information. I have also included the structure agreement <br />data sheet I have been using. This lays out quite well exactly what happened to each packet sent. <br />If you need anything else, you know where to reach me. <br />Thanks for all your help. <br />Sincerely, <br />t'*4a. 5 � <br />Mark A Heifner <br />cc: Scott Davis <br />Mark Morley <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.