Laserfiche WebLink
~II II~~I~~I~I~~~ ~I~ <br />999 <br />DIVISION OFMINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />I)el)J flnll'nl ul Ndluod Hc.nura•. <br />I.I I S Sher nr,rn tl.. Rnum _' I S <br />Denver, lulnradu NII!tl i <br />Phunc'14U {17{60 4SL7 <br />fA\. 111141 H 4! 74111(r <br />November 15, 1996 <br />To: <br />From: <br />Re: <br />Harry Ranney <br />Janet Binns <br />CCMC #1 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCE <br />Roy Romer <br />Gavemor <br />lames 5 I ochhead <br />Eaecwive Director <br />Michael F). Long <br />Division Dueclor <br />Review, C-81-024. <br />Since I had just gone through the SL02 review at considerable depth, the midterm review <br />basically identifies one item I saw as problematic in the permit. I reviewed the vegetation, <br />topsoil, and reclamation plan sections. Since this mine is reclaimed and while I was <br />inspecting the site it had essentially no problems, my review focused on the reclamation <br />aspects and determination of reclamation success. <br />1) On page 2.05-5 of the permit, Kaiser refers to "approved reclamation success <br />standards contained in Exhibit 7". Below this statement are the currently approved <br />reclamation success standards. Exhibit 7 contains historical standards that are more <br />stringent than those standards currently approved for the site. Please have Kaiser <br />revise this statement or file the currently approved standards in Exhibit 7 that would <br />make it clear what the current, 1996, standards are. <br />Really, everything else is in compliance with Rules 4.06.4, 4.15.7 and 4.15.8. I have included <br />re-written portions of the findings document to update the findings with. <br />