Laserfiche WebLink
•--, <br />held that the proposed bond increase xas ungrounded since no changes had occurred ;y` <br />in the mining nod reclaration plane nor in the genernl economic condition. David •,' ; <br />communicated this to Mr.. Berry during the inspection. ~• ~ _, y r'''; ,,:.• ~.'~ <br />c~~ C" 1~ <br />On September 18, 1986 Mc•. Berry again inspected the mine. Ne did not contact us as <br />is required by regulation (Section 121 8.11.2). I learned of the inspection by yi y' <br />receiving the written report by mail on September 30. The report noted "Possible ~-~;. <br />•,. ~~ <br />problem(s)' and included the attached page. <br />Observation 1. refers to maintenance of the road, and the road width did vary by as ~~•.',. <br />much as 6 inches Erom earlier measurements-~+ell within the acceptable range for a ~` ~.•' <br />good quality grader operator. ~<' '.; <br />~ .- <br />Observation 2 refers to the regrading of ezleting rock along the ore bin by the' ;-'~ , <br />local residents as was discussed in my January 2, 1987 letter. Ma dumping had ~~,'~.~r'- <br />occurred. The culvert ras provided by the county and protected the road mentioned ~^,>'• <br />Sn Observation 1 and the county road and Cherefore I assume it meets county <br />standards. Even though the culvert capacity is an important issue to ue am mine ~~";f, <br />operators and to the county, as we have to rep~r say wash-over, it does not seem <br />to be a reclamation issue. <br />Regarding Recommendation 1, no changes have been made to~the development plane <br />filed wlth.[he MIBD in April 1982, and the "big" grading issue along the county <br />road rae addressed at the October 23, 1986 MLRB meeting. <br />i' <br />~J <br />rr ` <br />Mr. Berry's final inspection prior to the October 1986 MLRB meeting xas conducted <br />on October 8, 1986. Again no notice xas given to the operator until the xritten <br />report arrived in the mail on October 18. The purpose of the inspection xas to <br />measure the disturbed areas. We agree xith the measurements of a total of 0.25 <br />acres. However 0.10 acres vas pre-etiating disturbance (all pre-1976 and mostly <br />pre-1940). About 0.15 acres is covered by the MLRD regulations and the additional <br />disturbance along the county road at the ore bin constitutes 0.01 acres. <br />\•Based on the September lEt, 1986 inspection report and notice that re rare on the <br />" ,`agenda of the October NLRB meeting, we ezamined the property, documented all <br />~,~,'' changes to the land surface and began preparing our defense to the MLRD. The <br />~folloxing.teleph~me-eonve:rsations rare held rith Mr. Betty or with the MLRD (when <br />Mr. Berry ras on.R6R save): '~•~` ~, •,,~ ~ ; a ;. y. •~~ <br />Sep 30'„` lmin y.i. •~•`'S <br />• '"' ~~ - Oct 6+• ~ 2:28pe 3¢dn • y'- ~~ <br />J <br />•'~' ` ~ '-- Oct- 15 Mr. Harry returned call to P. Moach, co-oxner -i- ~'" ~~ - <br />y• Oct 16 Mr. Berry returned call to A. Palen, conaultac~~ __ :~. <br />Oct 20""'11:Sbam 2min ..,t`, ~ ~ ~ " - n--" <br />Oct 20'+^~ 1:17pm 3min~ r r,..,..` ,. „~,i ":. ~ y~,.,d 'y <br />.~ <br />Mr. Shelton in his letter states that I did not respond to <br />~,` K valid representative of the mine. rae present during she Ju <br />~ learned of the September 18 inspection by receipt of the rr _ _ _..., report <br />;~ which ntated I was already on the agenda for the October 1900 Board meeting. The <br />~:` third inspection (October 8) I learned of in the seas ray and I believe it ras <br />conducted solely to gain factual evidence to support the bond increase after I had <br />communicated my intention of fighting this incredible and unfounded increase. The <br />MLRD tae suggesting SOZ to 60Z annual inflation as their only justification for the <br />• bond increase. I never argued that ay rarranty requirement be zero, only that no <br />