Laserfiche WebLink
• III IIIIIIIIIIIII III a <br /> <br />MARCH, MARCH, MYATT, KORB & CARROLL <br /> ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW <br /> ROBERTSON BUILDING <br /> I10 EAST OAH STREET <br />ARTHUR E.MARCH POST OFFICE BO% 469 <br />ARTHUR E. MARCH,JR. FORT CO LLIN S,COLORADO BO522 <br />RAMSEY D. MYATT <br />M ARN L. 1(ORB April 18 / 1980 <br />JOSEPH T. CARRO LL, JR. <br />State of Colorado Department of <br />Natural Resources <br />Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />1723 Centennial <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Attention: Mr. Dean Massey <br />Reel mation Supervisor <br />and <br />r. Richard Mills <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />Re: The Rockcastle Company <br />Permit No. 78-45 <br />Dear Dean and Rick: <br />TELEPHONE <br />ARE4 CODE 303 <br />482-4322 <br />My review of available information in the file which I <br />obtained from my client after I became involved with them in <br />early 1979 indicates that the following is the sequence of <br />events surrounding the issuance of the permit to The <br />Rockcastle Company - as such events pertain to the matter of <br />ground and surface water monitoring: <br />1. Under Exhibit G to the permit application we <br />advised the MLRB that we had not encountered <br />ground water within the depths to which we expected <br />to mine and therefore did not expect to make an <br />impact on the ground water. We also advised that <br />all surface water discharge from the disturbed <br />areas would be retained in the "first cut sedimen- <br />tation ponds" and therefore surface water monitoring <br />.would not be part of our plan. <br />It is obvious to me that the interpretation of the <br />regulation at the time of the permit application <br />was quite restrictive in scope and viewed as <br />requiring discussion only of areas directly impacted <br />as opposed to indirectly affected by the mining <br />operation. <br />