My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC07179
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC07179
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:04:22 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:30:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977211
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
7/26/1994
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT COMMENTS PIKEVIEW QUARRY PN M-77-211
From
DMG
To
CASTLE CONCRETE CO
Inspection Date
7/14/1994
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanment of Natural Resources ~~~~ <br />1313 Sherman BI., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: 13031 866-3567 <br />FA%:13031 0 3 2-81 06 <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />Jul 26, 1994 NATURAL <br />y RESOURCE <br />Mr. Mark Heifner Roy ROmer <br />Castle Concrete Co. cover°°` <br />37 East Colorado Avenue Tames S. LOChhead <br />E><ec urive Director <br />Denver, CO 80210 <br />Michael B. Long <br />Division Director <br />RE: Response to Inspection Report Comments, Pikeview Quarry, <br />Permit No. M-77-211 <br />Dear Mr. Heifner: <br />I feel I should respond to your comments regarding my July 14, 1994 <br />inspection report statements so the files will show, if nothing <br />else, that I reviewed your comment letter. <br />Regarding your comment number one (1) , it is obvious I was not <br />implying that Castle is proceeding with the amended plan otherwise, <br />if I had thought Castle was operating under the amended plan, I <br />• would have noted it as a possible problem (or possible violation) <br />in my inspection report since the amended plan has not yet been <br />approved. <br />Your comment number two (2) is correct. <br />Your clarification of my statement in comment number three (3) is <br />correct. I should have stated that the final reclaimed surface <br />configuration of Area H will resemble the topography in the current <br />approved permitted plan. <br />If you have any questions give me a call. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~ <br />James Dillie <br />M:\ou\Leifue(l.jd <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.