My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL55343
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL55343
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:40:22 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 10:15:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
11/5/1993
From
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 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />The Corley Company <br />Phone 632-5050 PO BOM t62t <br />COLORADO SPRINGS. COLORADO 80901 <br />Oct. 29, 1993 <br />Mr. Larry P. Routten <br />Division of Minerals 6 Geology <br />1313 Sherman St. <br />Denver CO 80203 <br />RE.C;El~/Fu <br />NOU 5 1993 <br />DlPigiOit Cf rcunel~~,; b urcf0iiy <br />Dear Mr. Routten: <br />We have several comments regarding your proposed new West Pit Agreement. <br />Specifically concerning Sa and b, we do not believe that the entire <br />embankment between the present culvert location and the pond should be <br />removed. If the west portion of the embanlanent were removed, the <br />underground mine would again be a potential area for water to enter. <br />The drainage into Magpie Creek must be as far east as possible. <br />Item Sb also states that the channels will be constructed in accordance <br />with the Field Directive and attached map, but item 9 states that the <br />map does not represent an engineering design. Is that not <br />contradictory? While 9 gives us the right to make comments, it does not <br />specify that the Division will engineer the design using recognized <br />professional standards. We note that the first design for the original <br />agreement diversion utilized incorrect 10 year rain amounts and that the <br />second design specified in 8b utilized a "rush" design based on a <br />"paucity" of information. Neither design complies with the Agreement <br />statement that the engineering would "utiliz[e] recognized professional <br />standards". <br />Sinc/e~rnely, <br />J ~Q <br />W. D: Corley, (~ <br />President <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.