GENERAL32650 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

remote sites have never been inspected, and that it has been many yeazs since any permitted operator actually went to some of these sites. This explains the degree of deterioration and the fact that some of these sites have been "lost to memory." S. Again, as permitted operator, IUSA must fix these things. I'm not actually sure if the bond will increase, but without having a full inventory from you for all separate sites, structures, features and conditions, I will take a conservative stand on all bond calculations. IUSA may influence the bond estimate by providing a full accounting of the sites, and actively maintaining or reclaiming them. T. OK They remain as a bondable liability as long as they are onsite. If they are to be used in the future, all we require is periodic reporting as to their condition and use status. (This type of thing holds for all important structures.) U. Again, I should have said "affected area." I will provide a location description, plus other related details if my notes include such, for each site or item. I cannot provide the locations on the state plane coordinate system, since none of our information is presently referenced to that grid. I assume that you have the descriptions of all the claims in the block comprising the permitted area, and that you probably can overlay the public land survey grid on the claim boundaries (as you did for the Monogram Mines last year). If that is possible, these sites will be easily locatable. (The 1980's maps also include a location grid (azbitrary?) with northing and Basting scales. I can provide northing and Basting numbers, in case you still have that grid.) I will also make a copy of the sites on a set of 8-1/2" x 11" sheets, which may be taped together if needed. These will be enclosed as a list with this letter. As far as there being any shafts which are strictly pre-law (not used after permit issuance in 1977) and therefore not required to be bonded or reclaimed, I do not know. There may well exist such features in this general azea, given the decades of exploration and mining before the law took effect, but we do not have such information in our files to my knowledge. If a pre-law site was used at any time after the permit was issued in 1977, it is required to be included in the affected azea acreage. V. There is no V. W. That last site will be included on the list of sites. The 1997 reclamation cost estimate you ask about is just an estimate. I had to utilize the permit file to determine roughly what the total reclaimable acreage was, the types and extent of the reclaimable disturbance, and quantify them for the cost estimate. I informed IUSA at that time that if there was better information which could be used for a more realistic cost figure, I would use it in a revised estimate. The ten vent holes were an estimate; there may be more than that. The number of buildings has certainly increased since they were last mapped. The amount of total acres affected by this operation is still to be seen, but is hopefully no more than 40 acres. The locations of all areas affected by this operation are hopefully all within the 7S5-acre permitted area, though I have doubts about that for a couple specific sites. I probably already referred you to Rule 6.2 for general map standards, Rule 6.3.5 for specific 110 permit map requirements, and Rule 6.4.3 and 6.4.6 for 112 permit map requirements, but reviewing those rules again may help. Contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at the Division's Durango field office: 701 Camino del Rio, Room 125, Durango, CO 81301; telephone 970/247-5193 or fax 970/247- 5104. I look forward to receiving the response materials.