Laserfiche WebLink
~ <br />COLC~~ADO <br />SA1~ D <br />~ ~~~ I~~I~~~~~II~~I~~ <br />vR~/EL CC.. <br />n999 York St. • Denver. Colorado 80229 <br />Phone 455-3233 or 269-64x1 <br />May 15, 1985 <br />Mr. Peter V. O'Connor <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />423 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Dear Sir: <br />ram iu Ri ~\'~~~1 n~YY <br />1 f <br />M,~Y i ~ 1~~~ <br />L~.1. ~~'~ k'i~lY Crn; n11~T~4ri l~~ViS~o1 <br />~~1!0. Dc~t. cf i:,;iui:ll r'e:~,,;, ,. <br />RE: Henderson Development Co. <br />File No. 80-110 <br />lde make reference to your recent correspondence relating to a possible <br />violation of Mined Land Reclamation permit and explanations that were <br />offered by Quest Consulting in their letter to you of April 23, 1985. <br />It is evident that. there has been a breakdown of communications rela- <br />ting to the facts of the case. Possibly the most important factor lies <br />in that our General Superintendent who was responsible for the gravel <br />operation retired in September of 1984. The present General Superinten- <br />dent has only been with the company since February 25, 1985. He, of <br />course, was not knowledgeable about the past and about present circum- <br />stances and, consequently, inaccurate information was obtained. I, <br />therefore, intend to clarify the operations to present on the Pinewood <br />Estates property and also relate to the Sandy Acres property which im- <br />mediately joins the Pinewood Estates to the north. <br />The properties originally were permitted by other parties and mining <br />operations had been commenced prior to our involvement. We did, in <br />fact, purchase the equipment and the land leases and ground purchases <br />at a later date. lJe did not agree with the sequence of operation or <br />the design criteria and asked for an amendment to be processed elimi- <br />nating the island on Pinewood Estates. This was accomplished on <br />November 17, 1983. It also should be noted that the primary applica- <br />tion refers to the property line setback of only 10'. The revision <br />showed 25' which, of course, apparently came about because of a change <br />of regulations. This was not specifically brought to our attention. <br />It is our contention that as much gravel as possible should be extracted <br />from any mining facility so as to take advantage of the total resource <br />and not abandon this resource. Because of the gravel depth on this <br />particular property. We felt that the only way to properly salvage <br />the total resource was to purchase a large dredge. Our costs for this <br />dredge are in excess of $225,000 which includes the installation; how- <br />ever, before we could commence utilizing the dredge, we had to create <br />