Laserfiche WebLink
__ • iii iiiiiiiiiiiu iii • <br />__ <br />__- <br />_ _ <br />° _- <br />TUTTLE APPLEGATE, INC. <br />~~ Consultants for Land and Resource Development <br />March 19, 1990 <br />Mr. Michael J. Boyd, Reclamation Specialist <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman Street - Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />~~~~~ <br />~~ <br />`~~G ... ~HRD J I,~y~ <br />,,~q T~OnC,q~,f <br />J <br />RE: File No. M89-120, Platte Valley Pit Adequacy Items <br />Dear Mike: <br />I helve reviewed your adequacy concerns and can offer you the <br />following responses. Each item is numbered in correspondence <br />with your adequacy letter. <br />~ ~ 3. We have reached an agrement with CCWCD. They are <br />1~.,;1c'~ mailing a copy of the agreement for your reference. If <br />you do not receive it, I will have one in time for the <br />board meeting. <br />4. We do hold water rights that will be transferred into <br />this storage reservoir. These water rights include 6 <br />shares of the Fulton Ditch and 5 shares of the McCann <br />Ditch. In addition, new water rights will be filed <br />with the water court for storage. We plan to give you <br />a copy of these at the hearing. <br />The cost of bonding for an alternative reclamation plan <br />would simply involve backsloping and topsoiling the <br />shoreline much the same as we show in our original <br />Exhibit L. Therefore, the cost of an alternate <br />reclamation plan would actually be less than what we <br />propose to bond for. The only difference would be that <br />we would commit not to mine without an approved <br />augmentation plan which is within the purview of the <br />State Engineer's office. <br />5. We concur. <br />