GENERAL38604

• Permit No: C1981029
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 3/27/1986
• Doc Name: Midterm Review Findings Document
• Permit Index Doc Type: Findings
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Mid-Term Permit Review - 8 - March 25, 1986
Map 19 - The surface ownership boundaries around section 23 are
unclear. The map appears to show John Eilt's land stopping in
Sec. 14, with no owner of Sec. 23. The Trout Creek Mine
boundary should be removed and the ownership boundaries
clarified on this map.
Maps 21, 23 - The Division assumes that these maps are no longer up to
date, as the loadout pond has been modified subsequent to these
drawings. These drawings should be updated.
Map 24 - See discussion for map 15A.
From Additional Submittals
The maps from additional submittals, such as the bond release
applications, have not been approved in the manner of those submitted
with the permit application. Therefore, in the updated permit
application original approved maps should be used whenever they are
available. Maps from these later submittals should be used only when
specifically requested, such as for as-built drawings.
Figures 4 and 5 of the Bond Release Application show the design of the
sediment ponds on the backfilled area. Figures SA and 56 of the Pond
Certification Volume apparently show as-built designs for these ponds.
Figures 5A R, 5B should be marked as as-Built, and changed from
impoundments to sediment ponds. All four figures should be inserted into
the permit application.
Figure 6 from the Bond Release Application, As-built Post-mine
Topography, should be inserted into the permit application. Figures 7
and 7A from this volume should also be included. Figure 8, if it is an
as-built revegetation map, should be so marked and inserted into the
permit application. Figure 7 from the Monitoring Plan volume could also
be used in this respect. All inserted maps must be referenced in the
narrative of the permit application.
V. bond
The Division has reviewed the original bond calculations and the calculations
presented in the Meadows bond release applications. The original assumptions
for the pit and facilities areas appear to be valid. Review of the haul road
backfilling calculations indicated that a backhoe might be necessary in
certain areas, rather than a dozer. The bond was recalculated using a backhoe
and found to be adequate.
Based on these findings and the proposed decision pursuant to the Meadows bcnd
release application dated February 21, 1986, the Division proposes to release
$456,533.00 dollars in accordance with the bond release provisions (Rules
3.,03.1(2), 3.03.1(3) etc.). The amounts to be retained and released are as
follows: