My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL31121
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL31121
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:48:29 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 6:52:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
9/28/1992
From
THE CORLEY CO
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~ <br />The Corley Company <br />Phone 632-5050 PO. BOx ~62t <br />COLORADO SPRINGS, GOLO RADO 80901 <br />Sept. 24, 1992 <br />Ms. Catherine W. Begej <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman St. <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Dear Ms. Begej: <br />SEP 2 8 7992 <br />MINERALS & GEO, „- <br />l , <br />We have received your written inspection of the GEC area, dated Sept. <br />10, 1992. We would like to document in writing our impression of that <br />inspection, and we will address the topics in the same order as the <br />inspection report. <br />Paragraph 3: there is some rock exposed in the red ash area that you <br />have identified as "bed rock". This rock is granite; granite in this <br />location would be about two thousand feet below the highest bed rock. <br />This granite is either aluvial or deposited by man in the red ash area <br />and is certainly not the bed rock layer. A few pot holes in the red ash <br />area demonstrate a soil layer a foot below the red ash layer in some <br />areas. <br />Paragraph'S: you have omitted a large part of the discussion regarding <br />removal of the sediment pond. We believe that the Rules do not permit <br />removal of a sediment pond before a demonstration of adequate vegetation <br />and the absence of increased suspended solids in the inflow water. <br />Paragraph 8: we questioned the potential success rate of seeding because <br />of lack of topsoil and compared that area to the topsoil borrow area. <br />Paragraph 9: we have never indicated that all of the coal waste along <br />the road was from GEC activities, but have indicated that some of the <br />waste is GEC. <br />Paragraph 10: when you asked about the duration of the research of <br />Joseph of the Colorado School of Mines, we said that we did not know. <br />We will state at this point that no travel by the researcher or others <br />will be permitted on any reclaimed road. However, we did say that the <br />reclamation of the road along the drainage that has the coal waste which <br />is the topic of the previous paragraph will be destroyed by drifting <br />coal waste if that coal waste is not removed. <br />You did not mention that you initiated the suggestion that our approval <br />of the reclamation work would be conditional on your replacement, and <br />you did not mention that we accepted that suggestion. <br />SincGxe y, <br />/~ <br />W.D. Corley, J . <br />President <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.