My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV92117
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV92117
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:13:35 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:18:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982055
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/17/1995
Doc Name
Midterm Review Findings Document
Type & Sequence
MT3
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Midterm Review 13 Raton Creek Mines <br />January 6, 1995 C-82-055 <br />2. The Division has previously requested a technical revision containing designs, <br />demonstrations, and certifications required by 4.05.9, 4.05.6, 4.10.3(2) and <br />4.09.2(7) for the two catchment basins. The catchment basins TR request was <br />stated in a letter from the Division dated December 15, 1994. Although the <br />designs, demonstrations and certifications requirement for the catchment basins <br />were addressed previously, they remain outstanding and as such are included <br />within this review. <br />3. The Division previously requested, in our letter dated November 15, 1994, a <br />technical revision containing a copy of EFMC's Topsoil Substitute Suitability <br />Report, with responses by EFMC to the recommendations made within the report. <br />The TR should also propose conditional approval, pending evaluation of the <br />revegetation success that will occur following two years after seeding. The topsoil <br />substitute TR is necessary to allow the Division's decision to become a permit <br />condition. Although this issue was addressed previously, it remains outstanding <br />and as such is included within this review. <br />EFMC has stated that all salvageable topsoil from the topsoil stockpiles has been <br />redistributed on the most sensitive reclaimed areas (see EFMC cover letter dated <br />October 19, 1994, for Topsoil Substitute Suitability Report). Division inspectors <br />met with EFMC representatives at the mine site on October 6, 1994, to discuss <br />reclamation issues. During that meeting, Division inspectors cited evidence that <br />suggests significant quantities of topsoil material remains at Topsoil Stockpile 1. <br />Evidence that significant quantities of topsoil remain stockpiled are recorded in <br />the Division's letter dated October 21, 1994 (Please note that the October 21, <br />1994 letter incorrectly references Topsoil Stockpile 3 rather than Topsoil <br />Stockpile 1 as the stockpile which was inspected.) Please ensure that the topsoil <br />substitute TR contains demonstrations which verify that all salvaged topsoil has <br />been redistributed as per the approved reclamation plan. <br />4. Mr. A.J. Iuppa, land owner at the mine site, submitted a written request to the <br />Division dated July 27, 1994, for several mining structures currently approved for <br />removal to remain as permanent structures. A technical revision, containing <br />written request from the land owners, has been received by the Division. The <br />Division is currently reviewing this revision with regards to Rule 2.05.5(2). <br />BONDING SUMMARY <br />The performance bond liability for the site had been established at $205,831.00. The <br />Division currently holds a total of $205,831.00 in sureties for the reclamation bond at the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.