Laserfiche WebLink
• iiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiii <br />TES <br />awcFrraN <br />28 September 1995 <br />File No.: 20220-000 <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Attention: Mr. Gary Curtiss <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />ROCA SVLID / <br />RF~EivEC~ <br />SEP ~ ~ 1995 <br />Jrvisioi~ u~ „ia~cidia a ueo~ogy <br />Subject: Bromley Lakes Pit, DMG File No. M-87-049 <br />112 Permit Amendment Application <br />Adequacy Review Response <br />Dear Mr. Curtiss: <br />The purpose of this letter is to respond to your request for additional information <br />regarding the Adequacy Review that you asked for during our phone conversation <br />yesterday. <br />This is the information relating to the Urban Drainage letter dated July 28, 1995 and <br />was not part of your original adequacy review request responses per your letter dated <br />September 19, 1995. <br />The main concerns expressed by Urban Drainage were: <br />1. The size of the berm between the South Platte River and the mining area and its <br />location in the Flood Plain. <br />2. The impact of dry mining and dewatering in relation to the South Platte River. <br />in response to Item 1 above, the size of the berm located on the surrounding area of <br />the pit is determined by the amount of overburden overlying the gravel deposit. <br />Because the mining activity occurs In the flood plain It is consistent with placing the <br />overburden in close proximity to the mined out pit for economical and efficient means <br />to complete reclamation. We plan to begin as noted in our annual report this coming <br />year after this area is mined, reclaiming and reducing the berm size to address this <br />concern. <br />P.O. Box 2290 <br />In response to Item 2 above, I believe we have addressed groundwater c6na+eara~fih so2o~ <br />surrounding areas by our monitoring well program and the data is more ~gggL~p~s3o <br />