PERMFILE65042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•• ~ P.O. Boz 537 F~`~ Idaho Springs, CO 80~ ~ January 31, 1986 FEQ OG1981 Colorado State Legislature _ MiNtL~ L~4PID After receiving a copy of Mr. David Sheltoa's letter to the ~~aA~~'jQll'kd?~/I1~IpN January 27, 1987, I feel that several issues require further clarification. I was satisfied with the Mined Land Reclamation Board (NLRB) ruling of a bond increase of $100. What L was sot satisfied with was the procedures used. I accept that environmental regulations are essential for our elate and our nation. Most Sndividuala, especially iainere, have a great deal of respect for the land and its preservation, and most environmental problems are caused by companies whose organization results is :Lndividunls being far removed from the policy making processes. I believe a1:L operations large and small aunt comply with environmental regulations, but these regulations moat be reasonable and must be enforced ~uatly. Is it reasonable to require a mine *_o be reclaimed to a pristine condition when homes with permanent roads and septic systems have built nearby on the same type of land (i:e. patented mining claime)7 Ia it reasonable to require the miner to reclaia a piece of county road easement that was improved and is maintained privately and publicly fur the benefit of those ease homeewersP Ie it reasonable to fine a Boulder county operator $5,000 (by the USEPA) for too high a cadmium content in his water discharge when the cadmium content is lover than that of the Boulder city water supply, the final destination of this water diacharge7 The following is a brief history of my dealings with the Mined Land Reclamation Diviaioo (MLELD) and should be available for inspection under File No. M-82-075. In April 1982 I received a Limited Impact Permit (leas than 70,000 tone per year) from the !0'.RD for the property Sn question. At its peak this mine would produce 3,000 tone per year, about 4X of the mazimum allowed. The mazisum bond at the time was $2,500. I requested bonding at $100 (about 4X of the mazimum) as all the waste rock would be stored in underground slopes. Based on thorough review of the Mining Plan and Reclamation Plan, Mr. Shelton and hie staff agreed and recommended this bond amount to the NLRB at their April 1982 meeting. The bond was approved. I feel I received due process from the MLRD and that they and the lQ.RB made a competent permitting and hooding decision. The'regulntions state (C.R:S. 34-32-101, Section 11712) 7.17) that bonds "may be adjusted by thr Board from time to time due to changed economic conditions or as significant stages of the reclamation plan are completed or amended." There have been no chanRea in the mining or rec'amatioa plane, in fact little surface work other than maintenance of ezieting roads has been done. We have moved over 1000 toss of rock during development drifting and atopfag with a1L the waste rock stored In underground slopes. General economic conditions have not changed much since 1982. Metal misers genereilly use the CPI ae their inflation indicator. Based on annual CPI increases, my bond should be increased by $14 to cover coat increases . from April 1982 to January 1987. On July 17, 1987 Mr. David Berry inspected the mine. Mr. David Moech, my son sad co-owner of the mine was oa-site during the inspection. David's Snterpretation of the inspection concurs with the written inspection report that there were no probleas at the mine and that Mr. Berry said the financial warranty should be increased to $500 to accommodate the "increased reclamation costa in 1986". We