Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c- <br /> <br /> <br />Letter to Joseph de Raismes 2 Mav 3. 1995 <br />Mr. Schmidt was sent a copy of the report and the co:;t evaluation, <br />and, in accordance with a request from Mr. Schmidt, was also sent <br />copies of these materials via facsimile. If the City of Boulder did <br />not receive, or has misplaced these documents, please let me know <br />and additional copies can be provided. <br />2. It is stated in your letter dated April 21, 1995, theft the Jenkins <br />Site has 102 acres of ground disturbance, and th,st 80 of the <br />disturbed acres are considered by the Division to be areas of major <br />disturbance. It should be reiterated that the 102 acre figure is an <br />estimate that was made based on detailed observations during the <br />February 21, 1995 site inspection. This acreage estimate should be <br />accurate to within a few acres. It is important to clairify that the <br />Division considers most, if not all of the ground dist~irbance at the <br />site to be areas of major disturbance The following 'quotation is <br />from the Division's February 21, 1995 inspection report: <br />Current, on the ground disturbance is estimated to be 102 <br />acres, most of which Would be considered major disturbance. <br />The reason that the compliance plan for the Jenkins Site is <br />focussing on the approximately 80 acres of disturbed ground south of <br />Coal Creek, is to bring the pit into compliance with the limitations <br />on ground disturbance contained in the permit. The disturbed acres <br />north of Coal Creek, which are considered areas of major <br />disturbance, may remain open for future extraction under the terms <br />of the approved mine plan and existing financial warranty. <br />3. Item number 1 in the list of concerns presented in your April 21, <br />1995 letter argues that a technical revision to the Jenkins Site <br />reclamation permit dated April 5, 1995 was worked out orally and <br />informally between the mine operator and the Division.. The concern <br />is expressed that the opportunity for public or landowner input has <br />been precluded. As I have reiterated to the various attorneys, <br />agents, and consultants for the City of Boulder with whom I have <br />discussed the Jenkins Pit, there is no formal public notification <br />associated with the technical revision process for permitted sites. <br />However, City of Boulder consultant Dwight Kimsey w+is provided a <br />copy of the technical revision literally the moment it was <br />submitted, and all parties were repeatedly informed than any written <br />comments received would be considered during the Division's review. <br />As a point of clarification, the technical revision dated April 5, <br />1995 has not yet been given final Division approval, and could not <br />yet be approved since it is still a working document with pending <br />submittals of supporting documentation. The Division';; letter dated <br />April 7, 1995 provides preliminary approval of the reclamation <br />measures proposed in the technical revision application, as was <br />necessary to allow site work to proceed in order to bring the pit <br />into compliance with the reclamation permit. It should be further <br />clarified that technical revisions are not presented to the Mined <br />