Laserfiche WebLink
Part II Reply to observations made in the OMLR inspection report respective of the Operation <br />in general, and specifically as they pertain to `Valuable Deposits' stockpiled within Tract B that <br />the Office intends to bond as if it were a liability or waste in the event of operator default or <br />forfeiture of the permit.: <br />1. The 28 August OMLR inspection report makes the following observations: <br />Each assertion of the report must be examined in light of the approved permit and <br />attending context on the ground: <br />a) ... in response to a citizen complaint regarding the large sand stockpile located in the <br />northeast corner of the site. <br />The key words are `Large' and `Citizen.' While the volume is stated later in the report, <br />the subjective description may reveal bias and sympathy with the unnamed objector. <br />Regardless, the method, content, and associated information about the `citizen' and the <br />`complaint,' are never revealed. It should be kept in mind that all of us are citizens. <br />Several questions are inspired by the concern, and because State power is involved, <br />purportedly to label stockpiles according to size, we must attend them: <br />i. Where are the limitations on stockpile size by commercial type specified in the <br />permit, the regulations, the rules? <br />ii. When did the stockpile become `large'? <br />iii. How does the largeness of the stockpile affect the `citizen' who complained? <br />b) The site was previously inspected by the Division on July 6, 20011... <br />If the stockpile was `large' in 2011, it was not mentioned. This strikes at the very <br />problematic nature of subjectivity as a lawful prescription. <br />c) The Division currently holds a financial warranty in the amount of $333,800.00, which is <br />not adequate to reclaim the site based on the observations from this inspection. <br />i. That this observation was directed at the sand stockpile is reflected in the <br />attending warranty estimate in the 28 August inspection report. <br />ii. That the Office intends to bond the sand stockpile and increase the financial <br />warranty is curious, since the act itself, intended to protect the State in event of <br />default/forfeiture, can subject the operation to default/forfeiture if the operator <br />does not comply with, or successfully refute, this perspective. <br />d) The approved mining plan indicates product stockpiles will be stored in Tract B, the <br />location of the large sand stockpile; however the size of the pile is much larger than <br />typical stockpiles for this type of operation. <br />i. Stockpiles are not static, or typical, for any `type' of operation. <br />ii. Abundance of one product at one operation is not predictive. The same product <br />may be scarce and difficult to obtain in other locations. Both circumstances affect <br />and are affected by: <br />- Geological depth, composition, and extent of the deposit. <br />- Efficiency of operations. <br />Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 30 March 2015 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation in 6 <br />reply to the OMLR Inspection Report of 28 August 2014 — Kurtz Project — M -1999 -006 <br />