Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />MARCH, MARCH, MYATT, KORB & CARROLL <br /> ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW <br />' ROBERTSON BUILDING <br /> I10 EAST OAH STREET <br />AATHUR E. MARCH POST OFFICE BOX 469 <br />ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. FORT COLLIN S,COLO RADO 80522 <br />RAM$EY D. MYATT <br />MARK L. kORB April 18, 1980 <br />JOSEPH T. CARROLL,JR. <br />State of Colorado Department of <br />Natural Resources <br />Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />1723 Centennial <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Attention: I .Dean Massey <br />Reclamation Supervisor <br />and <br />Mr. Richard Mills <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />Re: The Rockcastle Company <br />Permit No. 78-45 <br />Dear Dean and Rick: <br />k. <br />-:; <br />TELEPHONE <br />AREA CODE 303 -~ <br />462-4322 <br /> <br />hl ~1Y -1 1980 <br />P~Itd~D LAND RECLAMA710iV <br />Colo. Dept. of Natural Resources <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 exgected <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 /> <br />