ENFORCE20237 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III SPARKS, DIX, ENOCH & WINSLOW, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 126 S TEJON. SUITE 304 E ~ s 009) R E C E I !! PO BOX 16]8 R. KENNETH SPARKS TELECOPIER TIMOTHY V DI% COLORA00 SPRINGS. COLORADO 80901 )t9632-201 ~ BARYON L. ENOCH 0 C T 2 31989 MARK E. WINSLOW ROBERT M. WILLBON L MgRTINNU558AUM MINED LANG BRENDAL BARTELS KENTH BORGE$ October 19, 198~ECLAMATIpN DIUI$IQN Mr. Dan Hernandez Mined Land Reclamation Division 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 215 Denver, CO 80203-2273 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSDiISSION (303) 832-8106 Dear Dan: As you know, there is no party who will be more affected by the Castle Concrete corrective action plan for the access road than the Cedar Heights Lenders. The Cedar Heights Lenders own the land on both sides of the access road. Castle's off-site disturbances occur, in part, on property owned by the Lenders. The purpose of this letter is to supplement the "Objections to Corrective Action Plan for Snyder Quarry Access Road" which the Lenders filed at the meeting yesterday, and to emphasize those concerns which are immediately relevant because Castle Concrete is already in the process of implementing certain aspects of the corrective action plan. As soon as Castle Concrete commences earthmoving activity, these concerns require immediate attention: 1. The CAP designates permit areas for each disturbance which are much larger than the disturbance themselves. The gradilg plans also involve areas larger than the disturbed area. The Lenliers greatly fear that Castle Concrete intends to destroy additi~~nal established vegetation and trees as part of its corrective ,action plan. Our geotechnical expert believes this is unnecessary and entirely unwarranted. He also believes that some irregularity in the surface of the disturbed area may make the terrain more interesting and natural without compromising efforts to stabilize the slope. We urge you to instruct Castle Concrete immedia~:ely not to destroy any more vegetation or trees. 2. As indicated in paragraph 1 of the objections filed by the Lenders, we have concern regarding the stability of Areas 2 and 3. Castle's own expert indicated that slopes should be fl.attene~d to no steeper than a 2:1 ratio to establish stability. Despite t}iis recommendation, the CAP leaves Areas 2 and 3 with slope ratios of 1.3:1 and 1.8:1. This issue needs to be addressed immediately as earthmoving activity may have begun. It should be addressed. well before the MSHA protective barrier is installed.