Laserfiche WebLink
~' ~~ • III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />999 <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CC180203 <br />303 866-3567 <br />FAX. 303 832-8106 <br />DATE: <br />TU: <br />FROM: <br />RE: <br />March 13, 1990 <br />Michael J, Boyd <br />John T, Doerfer <br />Review of Adequacy Response, Platte Valley Pit, <br />C&M Companies, File No. M-89-120 <br />Fred R. Banta, <br />Division Dnector <br />I have i°eviewed the responses provided on February 20, 1990 to the Division's <br />adequacy concerns. My comments on the responses provided to the hydrologic <br />concerns are provided below, These are noted according to the numbering <br />system used in the February 7, 1990 adequacy letter. <br />4, The response to the question on whether water has been secured to fill <br />the proposed reservoir is based on: <br />(l.l The applicant intends to file for junior storage rights for winter <br />diversions when other senior reservoirs cannot divert because of <br />ice blockage of their delivery system, <br />(2) Much transbasin and wastewater effluent is available for the <br />taking, and <br />(3) Recent court filings show gravel pits as proposed reservoirs. <br />As no water rights currently exist, and no filing has been made for a <br />conditional decree, I would recommend we follow the Board's direction and <br />require an alternative reclamation plan be developed and bond for this <br />amount if it is higher than the current proposed bond amount. <br />5. The. responses provided on source of clay for the liner (5a) and <br />construction method (5b) are adequate. The response to design <br />specifications (5c) and (5d) states that these will be provided when <br />complete. The Division recommends a stipulation be placed upon approval <br />requiring these designs be provided 60 days prior to disturbance of the <br />site. <br />6. This question requested information on the dike separating the two <br />reservoirs. The response was to revise the reclamation plan to remove <br />the berm and instead propose one large waterbody. This change presents <br />new concerns as to the stability of this configuration during flood <br />conditions, <br />• <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />OF' ~~fp <br />e 3~~ ~~O <br />y .i <br />•~ ~ . <br />.r <br />~ X8]6 ~ <br />Roy Romer. .. _ _ <br />Governor <br />