Laserfiche WebLink
Y <br />approved reclamation plan sufficiently, which is the sole issue <br />presented to the Board. Instead, they are based on the Allens' <br />alleged contractual rights in relation to Blue Ribbon, their <br />request to belatedly revise the reclamation plan, and their <br />speculation about what the Division or Board would have done <br />had the Allens presented their present comments approximately <br />five years ago. The Allens objections, therefore, are totally <br />irrelevant to the sole question presented to the Board, and <br />provide no basis for denial of the partial bond release. <br />The Allens' objections should be dismissed for the <br />additional reason that they delayed too long in asserting their <br />requested revisions to Blue Ribbon's reclamation plan. Blue <br />Ribbon began discussing its plans to reclaim the mine with the <br />Allens during the latter part of 1985 and has continued to do <br />so to the present. The Allens requested information about Blue <br />Ribbon's ,reclamation plans by letter dated February 3, 1986. <br />Hlue Ribbon responded on February 11, 1986, by sending them a <br />copy of the reclamation plan section of the permit along with <br />post-mine contour maps, and stated that its plan was to <br />"obliterate" all evidence of mining at the site. By letter of <br />March 25, 1986, the Allens' first attorney, Mr. Woodrow, stated <br />that the Allens understood that the reclamation plan included <br />complete sealing of the mine portal, with the consequence that <br />any future mining would require new portals. Then, by letter <br />dated May 6, 1986, Blue Ribbon's attorney, the undersigned, <br />advised the Allens through Mr. Woodrow that major reclamation <br />was scheduled to begin in mid-June. This letter also presented <br />- 5 - <br />