My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV101621
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV101621
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:12:09 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:48:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988037
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/27/1996
Doc Name
FAX COVER
From
DMG
To
MARY ANN GASTON
Type & Sequence
AM1
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.
/
3
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
' - <br />Stale of Colorado <br />Page 2 <br />April 8, 1996 <br />1. Why hasn't the 3.84 acre parcel located in San Miguel Cowrly been covered by Reclamation Pemul? San <br />Miguel County operated this site before Skelton, Inc. purchased the land. Since the gravel has been <br />exhausted, it seems that the site should have becn reclaimed. The top soil is gone, the boundaries are not <br />marked and debris from the operation has spilled over onto my land. <br />2. The United application is incomplete and has stated incorcet information. <br />A. There is no application or plan to Air Pollution Control Division. <br />B. A portion of the notice has been cut out located at the entrance to the operation in San Miguel <br />County. <br />C. The County Commissioners of San Miguel, as of April 4, 1996, have not received a letter from Unilcd <br />and included in the application. <br />D. The Town of Norwood is listed as a wi[lun 2 miles of the United operation. The Town has not <br />received a notice. <br />E. The availability of water has not becn established. The Bollinger Ditch owners are meeting on April <br />I5, to discuss the request for a new headgate and what improvements to the Ditch would be required to <br />deliver the water. <br />F. In various letters and statements, United has indicated that the operation is essentially the same as <br />when Skelton operated the pit. The addition of asphalt and redi-mix concrete batch plants and washed <br />aggregate is an <br />expansion of the existing crushing operation. <br />G. There is a large amount of land with die top soil removed. Is this covered under their existing pem~it? <br />There are no measures to control dust. Dust control nceds to be implemented inmrediately since the windy <br />part of the year is m the Spring. <br />H. The letter to San Miguel County indicates another sire by Egnar. Should this be included in the <br />permit'? <br />1. San Miguel County leased 4 acres to Skelton to stockpile gravel. This was not disclosed in the <br />County's M-81-I54 permit or in Uniled's M-99-037 permit. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.