Laserfiche WebLink
Also, (pg.2, 14): `Exhibit F — Reclamation Plan Map represents the regulated base for which <br />reclamation must be judged as adequate for release. At the very least, the basins delineated <br />under Exhibit F — Reclamation Plan Map, provide adequate shoreline irregularity and slopes <br />in conformance with existing statutory requirements. Anything more is a bonus, for <br />everyone, and every opportunity will be made to take advantage of it, as stated above. Since <br />the creation of aesthetic effects, edge effect, and other natural landforms, remain subjective <br />and empirical, the stated intentions and any resulting efforts to achieve such effects, beyond <br />those identified in the approved seed mixture and as portrayed in Exhibit F — Reclamation <br />Plan Map, should not be held against the operation. Regardless, a reasonable and <br />conscientious effort to perfect the same will be made and documented over time.' <br />From Technical Revision #2, approved by OMLR on 20 November 2009: <br />This revision updated the extraction and reclamation plan, related activities and attending <br />financial warranty. Essentially the revision provided for two reservoirs east of Weld County <br />Road 28, instead of four. The revision language and map clarified the state of operations to <br />date, and as a baseline for subsequent Annual Reports. <br />The revision makes several statements consistent with the Original application, and further <br />identified to the extent relevant on the attending map. Witness, pg.3 15: '"The use of wash <br />fines from wet plant activity merits some discussion as it is fundamental to overall site <br />activity and reclamation potentials related to fill. Wash water is now recycled instead of <br />settled and discharged. Water for the plant is settled in internally placed silt ponds, and <br />eventually makes its way to a recycle basin (viii) for return water to the plant. Silt that settles <br />in the ponds is cleaned out and consolidated (xi). In this manner, the wash fines provide the <br />option of either leaving the material in place for final reclamation, or selling it as structural <br />fill if there is adequate demand.' <br />Continuing to 16: `The flexibility of the material for both production and reclamation <br />requires some mutual flexibility in the representation of the final site configuration within a <br />known area. By this measure, the basin limits (Map I) are determined as the maximum extent <br />of the basins based upon approved setbacks, and may be smaller, but will not be larger, as a <br />result of the final placement of structural fill from wash plant recycling activities.' <br />The revision continues a detailed description of each area of operations and correlated <br />reclamation estimates. Overall, since the inception of this permit, all activities, area limits, <br />and intent, including planned use of all materials, are well evidenced and characterized. <br />Summary Observations & Opinion to Part I: <br />Varra Companies, Inc., asserts that the observations of the Office on 28 August 2014, are <br />inconsistent and incompatible with the approved language of the permit. There are no <br />conditions at this permitted facility that warrant remediation on the ground or by statute. <br />Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 30 March 2015 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation in 4 <br />reply to the OMLR Inspection Report of 28 August 2014 — Kurtz Project — M -1999 -006 <br />