Laserfiche WebLink
10`VAR] <br />'1. <br />COLORADO <br />1A <br />State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: Southfield Mine TR39 <br />Please scan the attached e-mail to: <br />Southfield Mine C1981014 <br />TR39 <br />Confirmation to schedule Formal Hearing for October Board Meeting by W D Corley <br />Thank you <br />Janet H Binns <br />Environmental Protection Specialist III <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />office: 303.866.3567 ext. 8107 <br />email: janet.binns@state.co.us <br />Janet, <br />Yes, Daryl, George, and I met with Kent primarily for Daryl and Kent to discuss the vegetation sampling techniques to be <br />used. I tried to stay on the fringe of the discussion which meant that there was almost no conversation about the TR39 <br />issues. The only part that I played in the discussion was when Kent asked me to delineate the Corley /Vento boundary <br />separating the two portal reclamation areas. I told them that I could not do property boundary surveying without <br />supervision from Jack Keilers, the licensed surveyor who will be helping with the subsidence monitoring survey. What I <br />did do was put some surveying flagging on the end of the boundary fence high on the hill south of Magpie Diversion. <br />Kent was concerned with having a transect cross the property boundary, and the discussion included mention of Kent's <br />GPS. He said that he could locate a CPS point to submeter accuracy, and I said that was only possible with post <br />processing unless he was using a beacon. He said that he did post process but he did not use a beacon. I said that since <br />he could not post process his transect starting points in the field that there is a possible plus or minus 5 meter error. I am <br />not complaining about the possible amount of error, but I do complain when the accuracy of a CPS unit is not correctly <br />stated. Claiming that Kent's transect stake out points are subtneter is not true and it is misleading. <br />Regarding a specific issue with regard to TR39, George and I have traded subsequent emails on Sept. 9th and 11th. I think <br />you were copied on both of these emails. George and I cannot agree that the slope aspect of The Corley Company portal <br />reclamation is more similar to the slope aspect of the permitted veg ref area than to the slope aspect of the proposed area. <br />https: / /mail.g oog le.conVmai I /u /0 / ?ui =2 &i Ire29129fcb5 &viev�-- pt &search =i nbox&th= 1412829bb34ed872 1/2 <br />