My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE106066
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE106066
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:58:51 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 1:11:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1973007SG
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/24/1985
Doc Name
PERMIT BOUNDARY TRANSGRESSION AT THE DANIELS SAND PIT 2 YOUR FN 73-7
From
MARK A HEIFNER
To
MLR
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.
/
2
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
~~ ~ ~~ III111111111111111 ~ <br />37 E. Colorado Avenue <br />Denver, CO 80210 <br />(303) 722-9067 '=~ <br />:,o <br />Environmental Services Botanical Studies Photography ~- <br />January 24, 1985 <br />[DECEIVED <br />Mark Loye <br />Mined Land Reclamation <br />Rm 423 Centennial Bldg. JAN 2 4 i~JS <br />1313 Sherman St . DINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Denver, CO 80203 Colo. Dept of Natural Resources <br />RE: Permit boundary transgression at the Daniel's Sand Pit # 2 <br />Your File No.: 73-7 <br />Dear Mr. Loye; <br />On January 18, 1985, I discussed with you a problem at the above referenced <br />permitted operation. The problem is one of affecting lands outside the <br />permit boundary. The area affected was about 3.3 acres and is shown on the <br />enclosed map which has both the area affected and the location of the <br />permit boundary. The management at Daniel's Sand is well aware of the <br />problem and all activity in that area has ceased. However, in the near <br />future activity will be initiated again, but it will not be for purposes of <br />mining, but rather excavating a route for an irrigation ditch that will <br />adjoin the permitted land. <br />What happened is basically a matter of a couple of employees not following <br />instructions as to where they were supposed to be mining. They were told <br />to start at a totally different location. They started there but then <br />decided on their own accord to initiate an excavation elsewhere. Where <br />they initiated this second location was within the boundaries, but they <br />operated in a direction that soon took them out of the boundaries. As soon <br />as management discovered they weren't operating where they were supposed to <br />be and had gone out of the permit, the workers were promptly told to stop <br />all work at that location and move to where they were supposed to be in the <br />first place. <br />Although some land outside the permit area has been affected, the damages <br />done were rather minor and the method of operation was consistent with both <br />the mining plan and the principles of good reclamation. The soil was <br />stripped and set aside before excavation began. The site is essentially <br />level land on an upland area. No water resources or other environmentally <br />sensitive areas were affected. So even though they were outside the <br />boundary, there was no environmental damage that couldn't be quickly and <br />easily repaired. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.