Laserfiche WebLink
Question #2: <br />In terms of the building, the Division is not adverse to you leaving that as a permanent structure <br />for your personal use once mining is completed. What we need from you, which is in line with <br />existing Division policy at other sites, is a letter stating that you, as the landowner, want the <br />building left after mining for your personal use. You will also need to provide us a letter from <br />the county that you have their approval to leave the building on site once mining and reclamation <br />aze complete. Once we get those two documents, then bonding and reclamation for removal of <br />the building will not be an issue. (Please note that the file indicates that the post mining land <br />use for the site is agricultural and not residential.) <br />Question #3: <br />The Division does not disagree with your concern about the need for room for gravel washing. <br />However, your approved permit does not allow the waste pile noted in Ms. Crosby's inspection <br />report. Your approved permit states, "An open ended pit will be dug to extract placer deposits <br />from the channel, when the pit is lazge enough to turn a one yazd loader freely a one yard bucket <br />of material will go to the wash plant and a yazd of the was(h) rock and tailing sands will come <br />back to the pit. With this plan I believe I can keep my reclamation plan in check." <br />In addition, the mining plan states, "I can't see a reason in having waste rock dumps and tailing <br />impounds if proper mining management is in practice. My project plan is to use the waste rock <br />for back fill and keep grading to prevent erosion and to maintain hydrologic balance..." <br />Therefore, in order for your existing site conditions to comply with your approved plan, you <br />have a number of choices. You may revise your existing plan through a technical revision to <br />allow for a waste dump and bond for backfilling the mined out azeas to 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. <br />(You may bond for replacement of the waste dump material back into the mined out azeas after <br />mining or for the importation of suitable and adequate material.) Or, you may agree to move the <br />waste dump back into the pit as required by your approved mining and reclamation plan by some <br />date certain. (Given the lateness of the season; I suggest that such a task be completed by the <br />end of the 2006 mining season.) An additional alternative would be to agree to grade the <br />existing slopes above the south highwall to 3:1, if that is physically possible, as you mine or at <br />the end of mining. Again, that would take a technical revision and a possible increase to the <br />reclamation bond. <br />Question #4 <br />This issue has been tamed over to the Office of the State Engineer (SEO). Under the terms of <br />the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) we have with the SEO, we copy them on inspection <br />reports where it is not clear if SEO requirements have been complied with. This is the same <br />practice we follow with the Division of Water Quality and other State and Federal agencies. <br />In the pazagraph you state, "We feel Ms. Crosby and Mr. Mount filed an improper report noting <br />the above violation in correctly." My review of the file does not indicate [hat a violation was <br />specified in the inspection report. Ms. Crosby did list a number of items as (PB), standing for <br />"Problem". Our normal procedure is that if PB items are not resolved or dealt with by the <br />operator by the specified date, the Division has the option to bring such items before the Mind <br />