My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11004
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:31 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:16:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
12/15/1982
Doc Name
FOIDEL CREEK ARCHEOLOGICAL STUDY
From
MLRD
To
SANDY EMRICH
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 iiiiiiiiiiiuiii <br />999 <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />D Monle Pascoe. Ezeculive Director <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION ~ <br />DAVID C. SHELTON Diretlor <br />R is nartl D Lamm <br />Governor <br />December 15, 1982 <br />T0: <br />FROM <br />SUBJECT: <br />Sandy Emrich <br />Susan Mowry c~~nr`~ <br />Foidel Creek Archeological Study <br />I have conducted an adequacy review of the study submitted by CYCC in <br />November, 1982. I have the following comments: <br />1. The applicant should submit a topographic map that indicates the locations <br />of the four sites identified in the survey. This map should also include the <br />permit boundary. (Rule 2.10.3(1)(8)) <br />2. I recommend that Jim Pendleton check the discussion and calculations that <br />assert that no impacts will occur to site 5RT345 as a result of subsidence. <br />This discussion starts on page 28 of Exhibit 4, Volume 2. <br />3. The consultant who conducted the study recommends that site 5RT345 be <br />nominated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. I would <br />concur and suggest that SHPO be contacted to determine if such a nomination <br />has come forth or who is responsible and how it should be done. <br />4. There is some discussion of fencing being placed by CYCC in order to protect <br />the sitef5°'~ think SHPO should also be contacted to determine if this is an <br />appropriate and sufficient protective measure. <br />Overall, the study and report appear to be very well done and very thorough. <br />Pending SHPO's satisfaction with protection measures and efforts to nominate <br />site 5RT345 for listing on the NRHP, the submittal of the map requested in <br />1 above and Jim's concurrence that no subsidence impacts are expected <br />this section can be called adequate. <br />/mab <br />423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.