My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP24145
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP24145
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:56:15 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 3:54:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980224
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
1/19/1982
Doc Name
MACKENZIE PIT FN 80-224
From
MLRD
To
FREMONT PAVING INC
Permit Index Doc Type
ANNUAL FEE / REPORT
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.
/
5
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 />R is hertl D. Lamm <br />Governor <br />January 19, 1982 <br />~~ <br />Mr. Donald W, Lee, Vice-President <br />Fremont Paving, Inc. <br />839 MacKenzie <br />P. O. Box 891 <br />Canon City, Colorado 81212 <br />Re: MacKenzie Pit <br />Our File No. 80-224 <br />Dear Mr. Lee: <br />iii iiiiiiiiuiiiiii <br />Our Division has received the 550.00 annual fee for the above-captioned oper- <br />ation. Therefore, enclosed please find the receipt for your check, I have also <br />received and reviewed the annual report for this operation. In general, I <br />find the report to be satisfactory under terms of the Mined Land Reclamation Act. <br />However, I do have a few questions in connection with this operation that I will <br />outline below. <br />Yesterday, I received a call from Mr. Barto Babitz, Fremont County Planning <br />Director. He informs me that Fremont Paving is reapplying for Fremont County <br />approval of this mining operation and is noia going through the entire special <br />use procedure. Since I was originally informed that this was unnecessary, <br />please clarify the situation as concerns County approval for this pit. <br />I also have heard that there is some concern that the mining of this property <br />may affect surrounding wells due to some interaction with the ground water table. <br />It was my understanding that this operation was to remove material down to the <br />existing level of the plant area in order to enlarge this area for industrial- <br />type uses. In this way, the operation would neither encounter nor affect ground <br />water, since no ground water would be exposed or used. Please clarify this <br />situation. <br />I note from your map that area "C" is identified as having been reclaimed Last <br />year. As you know, reclamation of the pit walls is to be to a reclaimed slope <br />of 3H:1V. Yesterday, I received a call from an adjacent landowner, Mr. Anthony <br />Beltramo, who mentioned that Fremont Paving has left nearly vertical highwalls <br />immediately adjacent to his fence at the property line. Reclamation in this <br />case will entail backfilling until the slope is 3:1, It would probably be <br />easier and more economical to leave the material there in the first place. If <br />these highwalls are allowed to remain for an extended period of time, the <br />possibility for off-site damage on Mr. Beltramo's property due to mass movement <br />DEPART OF NATURAL RESOURCES • <br />D Monte Pascoe. Exrcuuve Dnector <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />DAVID C. SHELSON Director <br />423 Centennial Building. 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.