GENERAL38402 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~: '~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ rn~ 999 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Dcpanmenl of Nalurzl Resource 1313 Sherman 51., Koom 215 Denrer, ColorzAo 80203 Phnne' 13031 866 7567 FAx 1303183281U6 March 4, 1994 Dr. W. D. Corley The Corley Company P.O. Box 1821 Colorado Springs, CO 80901 RE: GEC West Pit Reclamation Dear Dr. Corley: II~~~ DEPARTMENT OI NATURAL RESOURCE Rm Rumri c~.r~nn~ Kcn Sala aa~ [n•~un.c Darn ar mir ha rl8 Lnnp Di.~i~inn purism As I mentioned during our phone conversation yesterday, Erica Crosby and I plan to meet with Phil Kessler next week to provide Mr. Kessler with directions regarding the drainage improvements in the GEC West Pit. Our intention is to provide Kessler with a change order including the final construction specifications following next week's meeting. You have indicated you believe that $4000 of the money available as a result of the Harrison Western agreement has already been spent doing gully repairs in the West Pit. Based on the language and map in the agreement, the Division was operating under the premise that repairs outside the Harrison Western liability area were funded by GEC bond money. You indicated that some of the repair work overlapped into the Harrison Western area. We will review the gully repair work in the field next week to evaluate the extent of work completed in the GEC and Harrison Western liability areas. If the work was done in both areas, GEC and Harrison Western money can be apportioned accordingly. The critical issue that needs to be addressed prior to our meeting with Mr. Kessler is the question of which of the two general diversion plans we have discussed to implement. Since all parties seem to agree that removing the pond and routing water directly into the Magpie diversion is the more prudent plan, I would hope that could be clarified in a revision of the existing agreement which the Division has proposed to amend. I understand you are reluctant to sign the proposed amended agreement due to concerns about defaulting from the existing agreement. It appears those concerns are irreconcilable, given the current financial and on-the-ground circumstances. Therefore, I would propose that we meet early next week to discuss the possibility of adding more language to the proposed agreement revision, allowing the construction work to proceed while acknowledging that unresolved concerns with the previous agreement still exist.