My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL42470
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL42470
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:11:04 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 11:47:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
10/26/1993
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 iiiiiiiuiiu iii <br />999 <br />The Corley Company <br />Phone 632-5050 P.O. Boy 1921 <br />COLORADO SPRINGS GOLO RADO 90901 <br />Oct. 25, 1993 <br />~F(~!" II !~' r <br />-f i <br />OCT ~ 6 1993 <br />Mr. Steven Renner <br />Division of Minerals & Geology <br />1313 Sherman St. <br />Denver CO <br />r~i ,.r r <br />.. : ~ G~ :,n., <br />Dear Mr. Renner: <br />We received your October 15, 1993, letter today October 25, 1993, with <br />regard to the West Pit reclamation. <br />Your assertion that the Divi-s ion's lock which was installed on our gate <br />at Section 30 has been removed is entirely incorrect. That lock was in <br />its same place on the chain two days ago. We have not removed the lock. <br />As for denying access to your contractor, we informed Erica Crosby two <br />weeks ago prior to any work by your contractor that a combination lock <br />had been installed on the gate. Your contractor has been furnished the <br />combination of that lock. <br />We were given a copy of the hydrology design of the changed drainage for <br />the West Pit. That design had attached a memo stating that the work was <br />"rushed" and that there was a "paucity" of information. Since the <br />design was based on different event amounts based on the NOAA <br />isopluvials at the site, and since the design resulted in erosive flows, <br />we have questioned the design. Certainly, there is no indication that <br />the design was of professional engineering standards. <br />As for the Agreement, the Division represented that it had determined <br />that $18,500 was sufficient to accomplish the necessary reclamation. <br />However, the actual accepted bid was $33,000 or $14,500 more than the <br />Division's calculation. In the event that the original reclamation plan <br />is performed, we shall expect the Division itself to pay the $14,500 <br />difference. <br />Sincerely, <br />(.(/ <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.