REV03955 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

125 4. The City's "Alarm" of 25 January 1995 translated into yin inspection 126 by the Office approximately 27 days later. The City's letter created the 127 impression that the City was caught unaware as to the scope of thie operation, t2s exaggerating the affected land by approximately 25 percent. The City 129 requested an inspection at the Office's "earliest convenience." Later, in the 13o City's correspondence of 21 April 1995 [page 1 item 1], the City :suggests the 131 Office did not give "any consideration of the City's or the public's interests." In 132 light of the Office's 21 February 1995 inspection report, it does not appear that 133 the Office was lax in any manner respective of their response time or the 134 thoroughness of their observations expressed there-in. l35 136 5. The Office's inspection report of 21 February 1995, spelled out 137 specific observed problems and specified two options for the operator. No 13s prior discussion of the terms of this report were discussed with Van~a, yet Varra 139 did not see ill intent behind it. Yet, when the report was discussed with the 14o Office, it is only appropriate to commend the Office for considering Varra's 141 concerns for preserving its assets, not previously allowed under Option 1 of 142 that report. 143 144 6. For all intents and purposes, Option 1 [page 3 of the 21 February 1as 1995 report] was then pursued within a tight deadline imposed by the Office of 146 1 May 1995. This work was completed on May 25 1995 -the day Varra was tai notified of the City's objection! For all practical purposes, the City's original 14s protest was not timely. 149 lso The intent of the TR was to assure that Option 1 could be completed without 1st the loss suggested under Option 2, which was not selected. Ordy Option 2 ts2 required an amendment. Option 2 would have required the Frosting of a ]s3 $375,000.00 financial warranty [approximate cost to Varra of $3,750.00 per tsa year]. Option 1 required actual reclamation of the site. The work had to be 155 completed prior to 1 May 1995. The report states... 156 1s~ "A bond in the amount of $375,000.00 will be required Icy the tss Division unless the operator can complete sufficient reclamation at is9 the site to reduce the estimated reclamation costs to some lesser 16o amount. As stated previously, if the area south of the creek is 16t completely reclaimed, through the seeding and mulchin 162 operations, the existing bond would be adequate." 163 164 7. The TR did not stop at securing resources for the opE~rator. The 16s TR included specific enhancements to the existing permit to improve the 166 chances for revegetation success: Correspondence to Bruce Humphries, Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation, of 21 July 1996 4 for Varra Companies, lnc. from Bradford Janes, Professional Forester.