REV94550 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

warranty. [f the Division approves the new plan, the cost of importing topsoil can be eliminated. However, the cost of importing "moisture-retaining soil" and the cost of screening and blending "the fine soil-element existing a[ the permit area" must be included in the bond. The Division believes that your request for an extension of the due date for submittal of additional financial warranty should be contingent upon 1) the submittal of an interim bond and 2) the submittal of a technical revision (assuming you want to revise the reclamation plan). As you recall, the Division sent you a letter on November 17, 1998 informing you that the financial warranty needed to be increased to $56,130.00 to assure there are sufficient funds to fulfill the requirements of the approved reclamation plan. You were allowed 30 days to review the cost estimates and challenge those that you could verify were too high. On December 7, 1998 the Division received a letter from you requesting a 30 day extension of the response date. Since [ was out of the office (due to various illnesses) the Division granted you additional time to review and dispute the Division's cost estimates for reclamation. The new date to respond to my November letter was set for January 18, 1999. On January 25, 1999, the Division received a second request for an extension of the response date; to expire on May 31, 1999 due to severe winter conditions. On January 28, 1999, Mr. James Stevens, Senior Environmental Protection Specialist, approved the new extension date (since I was still on sick leave) in order to allow the Division time to re-inspect the site. Specifically, Mr. Stevens was under the impression that Butala can demonstrate that there is enough topsoil available at the site to remove importation of topsoil requirements from the permit (via a technical revision), thereby reducing the financial warranty. On May 14, 1999, Butala submitted a letter stating that the inspection schedule (set For May 3l, 1999) needs to be revised because the site is inaccessible due to recent heavy snow fall. The Division agreed after seeing photos of the area. The site was finally inspected on September 29, 1999. Sufficient topsoil was not observed on site during the inspection so a financial warranty increase letter was sent out on October 21, 1999. The operator is required to submit additional warranty, in the amount of $51,130.00, to the Division by December 20, 1999 in accordance with Rule 4.2.1 (or submit a new bond in the amount of $56,130.00). Obviously, this has been an ongoing problem (since November, 1998) which needs to be resolved. You now have asked for an additional 8 month extension to submit the financial warranty increase (your letter dated December 7, 1494). Currently, the site is under bonded. Additional funds need to be provided to cover final reclamation costs. In order to assure there are sufficient reclamation funds, the Division will require the submittal of an interim bond by January 19, 2000 in the amount of $36,000.00 (this amounts to the total bond requirement, $56,130.00, minus topsoil importation costs, plus the estimated cost of importing moisture- retaining soil, plus the estimated cost of screening and blending the fine soil-element existing at the permit area); which is an increase of $31,000.00 in the existing $5,000.00 financial warranty. In addition, Butala must submit a technical revision to revise the reclamaton plan in order to incorporate the "moisture-retaining soil" and "the fine soil-element existing a[ the permit azea" and, also, el'sminating the requirement to import topsoil. The TR must contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the materials you intend to substitute for topsoil (moisture-retaining soil etc) will provide sufficient nutrients to allow a diverse and self-sustaining vegetative growth to occur.