Laserfiche WebLink
II. ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTORS: <br />Issues raised by Mr. Williams in his letter, received by the Division on July 24, 2002, aze listed below. The Division's <br />response to the objection issues follows. The Division does believe that the issues raised by Mr. Williams aze within <br />the jurisdiction of the Division or Boazd. <br />ISSUES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD <br />ISSUES RAISED DURING TILE INITIAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD <br />1. "The pit elevation has been mined deeper than the permit allowed as it was originally supposed to align up <br />with the future Berry Subdivision." <br />Response- Neither the current approved Reclamation Plan or the proposed Amendment 1 Reclamation Plan mentions <br />a Berry subdivision. Also, neither of these plans propose a limit on the depth of mining noris such a limit required <br />by regulation. The operator can extract the full depth of the gravel to maximize the resource available. <br />2. "They presently aze not able to keep their storm water contained within their property causing problems with the <br />Meeker Town Ditch and depositing alkali and calcium residues on neighboring property owners." <br />Response- The mine currently has a sediment trap built into the low point of the excavation azea and no runoff <br />leaves the site. The applicant has responded, in a letter received by the Division on September 4, 2002, that the <br />entire area was walked with the County planner and the planner also concluded that it was evident that the mine had <br />no[ impacted [he hydrologic balance during its entire life. <br />3. "Absolutely no weed spraying has taken place in the past and is evidenced in weeds overrunning [heir overburden <br />stockpiles. This pit is located in [he problem area identified by Rio Blanco County as producing the noxious weed <br />Leafy spurge." <br />Response- The Division did aPre-operational inspection on August 1, 2002 and did not observe a significant <br />weed problem. The operator has reported that no significant areas of leafy spurge have been found on the site at <br />any time. The operator has included a weed control plan in the amendment application and has committed to <br />monitoring and spraying weeds on an annual basis using contractors or County personnel. <br />4. "The 4`s and final problem is that they and the past operators of the Beny Pit have done little or no reclamation to <br />this point on the present 20 acres that they have Honed to date , and I question if they azen't.already working out <br />of their 9.9 acre permit, and they aze asking for 3 or four times more acres before fulfilling their obligations on their <br />present pit." <br />Response- As a correction to the complaint, the current permit is 42.7 acres, not 9.9 acres. The current permit does <br />no[ require reclamation until the mining of the material is completed. Concurrent reclamation is not practicable <br />because the mined out mine pit floor is use as a processing and mine product storage area. There is a financial <br />warranty in place to ensure that the reclamation is done. The Amendment 1 Application does require reclamation <br />as mining progresses, and the financial warranty will be adjusted to account for the worst case reclamation situation <br />over the remaining life of the pit. The current financial warranty is $33,500.00, the applicant has proposed <br />increasing this warranty to $122,592.00 upon the approval of the Amendment 1 application. The Division will accept <br />this proposal. <br />