Laserfiche WebLink
` Mr. Car] Mount <br />June 23, 2000 <br />Page 3 <br />considerably. The 1987 bond amount of $39,750.00 does not even begin to cover the amount of <br />damages or money needed to complete reclamation of the property of the existing Lariat Mine. The <br />proposed amendment does not increase the bond for Stage 2. <br />The increase of the reclamation bond was not addressed by Robco in its Technical Revision. <br />In light that Robco is now seeking to mine two areas simultaneously, areview must be made as to <br />the sufficiency of the bond amount and the adequacy of the Reclamation plan in the original permit. <br />The new mining will occur in an area vastly different in character than in 1987. 1n 1987, the area <br />was primarily an agricultural and rural area. Now in 2000, the mining area is surrounded by <br />residential development. <br />Third, Mr. Stockwell is concerned about the storage of explosives, chemicals and fuels on <br />his property. At the time the 1987 perati[ was issued for the Lariat Mine, little residential <br />development had occutred in the azea. At the current time, Chatfield Bluffs development is located <br />to the north of the Lariat Mine and the Chatfield Green Development is Iocated to the east of the <br />Lariat Mine. Cattle ranching continues on Mr. Stockwell's property. In Pazagraph 5 of your May <br />1, 2000 report you state that: "When (and if) Robco decides to use explosives on site they will be <br />required to specify the blasting plan for the site so DMG can review it to ensure that buildings and <br />O other manmade structures aze adequately protected." The proposed amendment does not address the <br />storage of explosives or other dangerous substances. <br />Fourth, in pazagraph 8 of your May 1, 2000 report, your inspection revealed a pond at the <br />base of the highwall of the active mine azea. The pond had been in place far some time as shown <br />by the cattails and fish which aze abundant in the pond. According to your May 1, 2000 report, <br />paragraph 8, "Within 60 days, the operator must provide the DMG with documentation <br />demonstrating that impoundment is permitted." In Pazagraph 9, of your May 1, 2000 report, the <br />matter of a decreed augmentation plan or approved substitute supply plan from the State Engineer's <br />Office for replacement of water was referred to the Office of the State Engineer. Pursuant to <br />Pazagraph 1 of the May 1, 2000 report, Problems/Possible Violations and Corrective Actions, Robco <br />must "Either (1) Remove the pond and ensure that the water is not impounded on the site or, (2) <br />Demonstrate that the pond is incompliance with the Office of State Engineer water impoundment <br />requirements and modify the DMG permit to allow a pond for sediment control and/or livestock or <br />wildlife watering." The correction date deadline is July 11, 2000. This water issue is not addressed <br />by the amendment. The Technical Revision does not seek to remove the pond nor does Robco make <br />any provision for avoiding impoundment of water on the site. Robco has not demonstrated that the <br />pond is in compliance with the Office of State Engineer. <br />In addition, enclosed please find a letter of May 30, 2000 from Mary Bunn, Zoning <br />Administrator for Jefferson County Zoning and Planning, which concludes at page 3: <br />O - - - <br />