My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL43463
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL43463
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:12:13 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 12:24:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/12/1989
From
MARK A HEIFNER
To
JOYCE J NEVILLE
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
-~ --~ n~ ~-~ ~ ^III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />~,a. ~a~~~"bb~8a. <br />',; enver, <br />(303) 722-9067 ~~~• <br />~ ::- '~~ <br />Environmental Services Botanical Studies Photography ~- 1,~._, __;,,, r . .. <br />October 10, 1989 <br />Joyce J. Neville <br />2617 S. Wadsworth Circle <br />Denver, CO 80227 <br />Dear Ms. Neville: <br />Gordon Morgan, President of Castle Concrete Company, asked <br />me to respond to your letter of October 2, 1989. We <br />appreciate the working relationship that has been <br />established and fully hope that present and any future <br />problems can be corrected to the satisfaction of Mansfield <br />Development and Castle Concrete. We have reviewed all of <br />your comments and have the following responses. <br />First, we can understand your concern over the close <br />proximity of the mining and permit boundaries on the west <br />side of the South Peak area of the amendment, lJe hope you <br />will recognize [hat maps for mining permits are somewhat <br />conceptual and do not reflect the kind of precision needed <br />for other projects such as development grading plans. We do <br />not have a problem with making a commitment to stay at least <br />20 feet back of the permit boundary. We would probably use <br />such a setback anyway just as insurance. Observing a larger <br />setback than 20 to 25 feet however would very significantly <br />reduce the volume of rock which could be mined from the <br />South Peak area. <br />Second, with respect to the possibility of slides occurring, <br />we wish to point out [hat one of the conditions of approval <br />which will be applied by the Board is that means must be <br />taken to prevent slides. Although the MLRD and the Board <br />will not hold us [o the use of any particular methods, the <br />requirement that they be prevented should be sufficient <br />"warning" that they must be prevented. There are many ways <br />to accomplish this end and we are sure in the next few years <br />many new ways will be developed. Certainly the best way is <br />with a rock fence of some kind. The new fence style <br />currently under study by [he Highway Department has <br />considerable potential, but we are not sure exactly how it <br />could be used in a quarry operation. Nevertheless, with the <br />RECEIVEC~ <br />DEC 1?1989 <br />MINED LrANC) <br />RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.