Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Dcparlmem u( Na rural Resrtur~es <br />I J I S Sherman SL. Room ? I S <br />Drnvor, Cplumdu 8(803 <br />Nhunr: 110'11 H6h-7567 <br />F A%: 1 411 41 74 12 -tt l O6 <br />April 16, 1998 <br />Mr. Edwazd Tezak <br />Tezak Heavy Equipment Co., Inc. <br />804 South First St. <br />Canon City, CO 81212 <br />RE: T.H.E. Aggregate Source (Permit M-77-193) Response to letter received April 14, 1998 <br />Dear Mr. Tezak: <br />~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Rov Rome. <br />Governor <br />lames 5 Lochhead <br />E*eaove Director <br />hvchael B. Long <br />Drvismn Direcmr <br />This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your letter, referenced above, and to attempt to reach an <br />understanding with you in regard to problems identified in the repoR of my inspection of the <br />T.H.E. Aggregate Source on April 1, 1998. I do appreciate your comments and the cl~mmitments <br />you have made to promptly address many of the problems mentioned in the repoR. I will attempt <br />to respond to each of the matters that you have listed in your letter and in the order they were <br />mentioned: <br />1) Your commitment to clear the ditch connecting Pond 1 with Ponds 5 and 6 is acknowledged. <br />Hopefully, the ditch can be kept clear or cleared promptly, if blocked in the future, ira order that <br />its ability to function as designed can be ensured. <br />2) Your commitments to determine the capacity of replacement Ponds 5 and 6 and to add <br />whatever capacity that might be necessary to provide the equivalent of approved Ponds 5,6 and 7 <br />are recognized. I consider the conswction of Ponds 5 and 6 quite aceptable; it is onl;i their <br />capacity that might be questioned. <br />3) I have read the report of Tom Schreiner's inspection in June 1997 where he does, 'for the most <br />part, indicate Division acceptance of the storm water management system installed along the old <br />hauVaccess road. Although the system does differ in certain respects from the system approved, I <br />would tend to agree with you that it should, if certain construction and maintenance [natters are <br />addressed, accomplish what is desired. Let me then speak individually to the construction and <br />maintenance issues I believe are involved here: <br />~ iii iiiiiiiiiiiii iii <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />a) I agree it should not be necessary to have a separate culvert to carry the dis~:harge of <br />Pond 2 under the road. That discharge, however, should be clearly conveyed by a <br />recognizable ditch to the adjacent catch basin which has the culvert that extends under <br />