My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1982-01-08_REVISION - M1979165
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1979165
>
1982-01-08_REVISION - M1979165
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 4:21:18 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:48:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1979165
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/8/1982
Doc Name
TR REQUESTS FOR THE BROMLEY PIT FN 79-165 & RECLAMATION PIT 1 FN 77-153
From
MLR
To
ALBERT FREI & SONS
Type & Sequence
SI1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
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
I 1:ULt 1I;.i b,i <br /> -µ DEPARTMENT OFF NATURAL RESOURCES <br /> D.Monte Pascoe Executive Director <br /> MINED LAND RECLAMATION <br /> 423 Centennial Building,1313 Sherman Street <br /> Denver,Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br /> David C. Shelton <br /> Director <br /> January 8, 1982 <br /> Mr. Alh,:rt Frei <br /> Albert Frei and Sons <br /> 8400 Hol y <br /> Henaersnn, Colorado 80640 <br /> Re: Technical Revision Requests for the Bromley Pit (File 79-165) <br /> and Reclamation Pit #1 (File 77-1'3) <br /> Dear Mr, r'rei : <br /> This is official notification that the Mined Land Ruc•larnation Board <br /> wi_1 be considering the above-cited technical revision requests o: <br /> January 27-28, 1982. At this meeting I will recommend approval of <br /> these technical revisions as submitted. <br /> I am assuming that the backfilled area of 3.16 ± acres at: the Bromley <br /> Pit will be revegetated in accordance with the revegetation plan outlined <br /> in the original application. Please correct me if I am wrong in ch:s <br /> assumption. <br /> Thank you for your prompt response to my inspection report. I acknow- <br /> ledge that the stockpiling of 35,000 cubic yards of topsoil satisfies <br /> the terms of the permit. The staff has reviewed the soil test reports <br /> and is of the opinion that, due to the similarity of the two soils, <br /> both soil types are suitable for reclamation. Perhaps the loam (SAN1) <br /> would be more suitable due to its higher water retention capability, <br /> which is important on this somewhat dry site. <br /> You also requested an explanation of my reasoning for recommendation <br /> Number 5 of my inspection report. Basically, I consider the disposal <br /> of the concrete material an unwarranted, unsightly hazard which has <br /> the potential for destroying wildlife habitat, of becoming a navi- <br /> gational hazard, o: altering the stream flow and channel morphology, <br /> and of propogating the disposal of other unwarranted inorganic <br /> rrwterial (old cars, :: •el drums, etc.) along the ziver. <br /> If you have any questions/comments on this matter, do rot hesitate <br /> to contact me. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> 7 <br /> Jay Lucas <br /> Reclamation Spt cialist <br /> JL/mt <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.