Laserfiche WebLink
• • He III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS <br />DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS <br />July 24, 1980 DOH FILE 42100 <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division ~~~~~~~~~ <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />723 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 ~~! ;i ~~ i9a~ <br />ATTN: Jim McArdle fJiiVED I_ArVD RECLAiVATit7:'J <br />Colo. Dept. of ~1~atural Resources <br />Dear Jim, <br />The following information concerning the Headley Gravel Pit is <br />furnished as per your request: <br />October 18, 1965 - The Department obtained an option from the <br />Headleys to purchase gravel from their property. The conditions <br />were as follows: <br />1. Excess overburden was to be placed along south side of <br />existing dam approximately 0.2 mile west of the pit area. <br />2. The existing piles of reject material are to remain the <br />owners property. <br />3. Waste asphalt was to be removed from the owners property. <br />4. No reject material was to be put back in the pit. <br />5. Pit and pit area were to be left in a neat condition. <br />December, 1965 - The Department maintenance forces purchased 24,000 <br />tons of stockpiled crusher reject material. <br />May 27, 1966 - A letter, this date, signed by Galen L. Headley and <br />Thelma Jean Headley, stated that the Departments contractor had <br />left the pit in a neat and satisfactory condition. Therefore, the <br />Headleys released the contractor and the Department from any <br />further claims as to the final condition of the pit. <br />October 12, 197D - The Department received a letter from Headley <br />stating we had not complied with the conditions of our option. <br />His contention was that we had placed excess overburden back in <br />the pit and that the dam was not of the proportions he expected <br />it to be. <br />After further investigation by the Department it was determined that <br />overburden was placed along side the dam as required. However, <br />our field engineers did agree that the contractor had removed <br />overburden from a portion of the pit they had not mined. They <br />stated that they had the contractor replace the overburden over <br />the unmined area, but that they had not placed overburden over <br />the gravel in the mined area. <br />We felt that the area actually mined was the pit area but Headley <br />considered all of the area covered by our option as the pit area. <br />In late October of 1970 we had a meeting with Headley to try and <br />P.O. BOX 850 GREELEY, CO 80632 (303) 353-1232 °' <br />