Laserfiche WebLink
<br />BENDELOW & DARLING, P.c. <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Mr. Larry Oehler <br />September 5, 1996 <br />Page 6 <br />wishes to exceed this amount, it should submit specific justification. Indeed, Mr. Oehler acknowledged <br />to the undersigned during telephone conversation of September 4, 1996, that the acreage "seems really <br />big to me". Mr. Oehler acknowledged that he had not questioned the Applicant, nor independently <br />calculated, the necessary disturbance area. The applicant should be required to minimize the ongoing <br />disturbed area by committing to a specific maximum operation area. <br />Ground Water. The applicant was asked to describe the nature of the stratum beneath the gravel <br />deposit to be mined. In 9 4 of its response, the applicant described a stratum that is a "lens of gravel <br />that has become a dense and hard conglomerate that is very similar to concrete." At the least, one <br />would expect the applicant to provide a report by a qualified geologist specifically identifying and <br />characterizing the geology of the stratum, and referring to its known description We question the <br />trustworthiness of this information in light of the applicant's previous factual inaccuracies and the <br />source of this information. We suggest that you require a specific geological report addressing this <br />issue. Furthermore, the applicant should be required to describe the stratum with respect to its ability <br />to protect ground water, within a distance well in excess of the 50 feet which it states it intends to <br />mine no deeper than. <br />Bond. The Division has stated that it will calculate a financial bond prior to the Board hearing. The <br />objectors had a right to have this information prior to completion of the h1f'otmal Conference, just as <br />they should have received Applicant's adequacy Response prior to then. <br />Exhibit Revision. Much of the Response modifies or supplements information contained with the <br />application. This information is not provided in the form of amendments to the application narrative <br />to the Exhibits to the application. Given the complexity of the application, the application should <br />consolidated into one document, to clarify the application, facilitate final review, and ease enforcement <br />over the anticipated thirty-year life of the mine. We therefore request that the Applicant be required <br />to submit the modifications and/or supplemental material in the form of revised exhibits and/or <br />narrative. <br />County Permits. We have contended that the Applicant is required to obtain a special use permit <br />from Montrose County for its asphalt batch plant, and the Applicant has stated in its letter to <br />undersigned dated 8-28-96 that the asphalt batch plant is a "facility of record" fot which no such permit <br />is required. I previously submitted to the Division a copy of my letter to Montrose County Planner <br />Mr. Gibbons dated August 13, 1996 inquiring as to whether a permit is in fact required, and asking <br />for public records which might document historical asphalt batch plant activities within the Montrose <br />County portion of the site. I enclose a copy of a letter to undersigned from Mr. Gibbons dated 9-5-96 <br />disclaiming the existence of such records. Mr. Gibbons informed me that there has not been a <br />