Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> j III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />STATE OF CO~ORAOO qiC Hpgn D. l/+M~A, Gnvc~n n~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />D. Monte Pascoe, Executive D~receor <br />1VIINED LAND ftECLAMA'TION <br />423 Centennial Buildi~1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />David C. Shelton <br />Director <br />September 16, 1982 <br />Mr. George Gregg <br />General Manager <br />Va1co, Lamar Concrete Division <br />P. O. Box 591 <br />Lamar, Colorado 81052 <br />RE: Lamar East Pit - File No. 77-527 <br />Dear P1r. Gregg: <br />I have reviewed your annual report of btarch I9, 1982 for the above captioned <br />operation. I have also reviewed the report of my inspection of November 11, <br />1981 (copy enclosed, for your convenience of reference). In Light of these <br />two documents, my recollection of my visit to the site, and my meeting with <br />valco personnel, I have tried to arrive at an overviera of the mining operation. <br />I will present this overview and my evaluation of the status of the permit in <br />this letter. <br />Your annual report clearly outlines the areas mined in the past year and the <br />areas planned for mining this year. This responds to my recommendation no. 3 <br />but does not respond to the other four recommendations in the inspection report. <br />I realize that the problem with the fluctration of the water table in the <br />various ponds on the affected land makes it difficult to outline exa.,t plans <br />for sloping of the ponds. However, if this condition persists, the ponds may <br />have to be sloped with such fluctuations being considered. Slopes o.f 3:1 may <br />have to be lengthened to a greater depth te•be sure of complying with the <br />sloping requirements of Rule 6.1(f). As the water table fluctuation:; are a <br />new factor in the conditions of this site, a new plan seems to be Headed. <br />At the present time, the total reclamation bond on this operation is 515,370.00 <br />(at a rate of $1,000.00/acre for 15.37 acres). It was clear to me during my <br />inspection that considerably rrpre than I5.37 acres have been disturbed <br />(reference my observation no. 2). It is cleai that the reclamation costs and <br />total area disturbed need to be recalulated and reevaluated in light of the <br />actual disturbance on the permit area. <br />