Laserfiche WebLink
The mine plan is very vague when it addresses the post mining <br />land use for the mine and loadout. DMG provided copies of the <br />findings documents that reference volume 1, pages 10-15 of the <br />permit application. A review of the referenced permit pages <br />still does not indicate a clear commitment by the company in <br />regards to the post mining land use. DMG has indicated that this <br />could be addressed during the mid-term review period if <br />necessary. The post mining land use should be reviewed by DMG <br />and the permit should be revised to reflect the requirements of <br />the regulations. <br />The Fremont County Court House is the public office designated in <br />the mine plan where the complete permit application plus any <br />revisions will be made available to the public. In researching <br />the records at the Fremont County Court House it was found that <br />the permit application is kept on file in the clerks office for a <br />period of 90 days and then the records are given to the planning <br />commission office. The records made available at the planning <br />commission office were not a complete copy of the permit <br />application. There is some doubt that the individual in the <br />planning commission office providing the records was completely <br />aware of the process and the location of all records concerning <br />the Twin Pine #2 mine. I suggest DMG and the company check with <br />the planning commission to insure that a complete copy of the <br />permit application and any revisions are available for public <br />inspection. <br />The information in the mine plan concerning operations and <br />controls at the loadout are lacking any specific details. There <br />is no information concerning the road and the drainage plan is <br />unclear. DMG has agreed to address this with a permit deficiency <br />letter to the company. A copy of the letter will be provided to <br />OSMRE. <br />MSEIR: Those items in block 25 marked with a "2^, noncompliance, are <br />discussed above, those items marked with a "5" were in noncompliance at the <br />time of the inspection but that noncompliance is related to and better <br />described under another performance standard category which has been coded <br />"2". Those items marked with a ^3" were not applicable for the purposes of <br />this inspection. <br />14 <br />