GENERAL47994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"There are two things we would like you to do. One, have the Division of Minerals and Geology write a disclosure of their action and take full responsibility of their action..." The above nan•ative describes the Division's reclamation actions at the site based on the approved reclamation plan. The Division's only obligation is to complete site reclamation based on the approved reclamation plan with available reclamation bond money. As a courtesy to the landowner, the Division always attempts to include the landowner in site decisions and achieve a final site reclamation that, while meeting the requirements of the approved reclamation plan, considers fully the concerns of the landowner. In your October 14, 2004 correspondence, you stated that two of the Division's inspectors, Ms. Erica Crosby and Mr. Carl Mount, had conducted an inspection of the Gold Basin Mine, File No. M1992-045, and found what you consider to be frivolous violations. A review of the inspection report sent you details the potential violations. At this point in our process, the Division is considering none of the listed issues at the site as violations. We have listed them as problems that need to be addressed by you in a timely manner. If they are not properly addressed, any one ofthe listed problems maybe scheduled with Mined Land Reclamation Boazd for apublic hearing. The Mined Land Reclamation Board will determine at that hearing if actual violation(s) exist. No hearing has been set so that you will have time to correct the deficiencies by the corrective actions dates identified in the inspection report . I encourage you to work with Division staff so that the listed items do not become violations. In your correspondence, you also request khat the Division conduct site water sampling over the next five years if the buried material is not removed. The Division has no funds available to remove the requested material. The Division does have an Emergency Response Fund; however, the Legislature deleted that Fund in order to deal with other State budget issues. Second, there is ao verifiable evidence, at this point, that the source of any seepage or its quality is related to the buried iron shovel parts. If the Emergency Response Fund moneys are reestablished in whole or in part, and it can be shown that the buried shovel is responsible for degraded water quality, the Division will reconsider your request. The Division is not able to conduct water quality sampling for you at your site. However, if you feel it is imperative that water quality sampling be done, we are available to provide guidance to you as to haw to sample and what water quality pazameters should be evaluated. The Iast issue raised in your October correspondence relates to the Emma Enterprise 1 prospect, File No, P-19870-006. You request that the Division contact the National City Bank of Auburn, Indiana with a letter of apology. The request for the apology is based on a bond forfeiture proceeding the Division initiated against you between the months of June and September of this year. Over the course of that time the Division attempted to contact you concerning the prospect and all correspondence was returned unclaimed. The Division then scheduled and held the first hearing of a two hearing process. An attempt was made to contact you for that hearing; however, the notice was returned unclaimed. The hearing was held and the hearing officer made the finding that the prospect was abandoned. The second hearing was scheduled in order to terminate the prospect and forfeit the reclamation bond. As is required by law, you and the