Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />costs and eliminating profit and job foreman costs. These assumptions <br />are not in corDliance with Rule 3.02.2(1) which states: "The amount of <br />the bond shall be sufficient to ensure the completion of the reclamation <br />plan if the work had to be verformed by the 9oard, through independent <br />contractors, in the event of forfeiture". <br />2. Pursuant to Rule 2.08.5(3)(a1(v), additional revised and updated -. - _ <br />- -information reouired-by-the--Division has not-peen provided. <br />In the preliminary adequacy review letter (PAR) dated ~lanuary 10, 1989, <br />the Division identified a number of-concerns relating rto informational <br />deficiencies and outdated permit documents for the Larbon Junction Idine <br />(see discussion under "History of the Review Process" of this document 1. <br />- Several issues were identified as being of such concern that the Division <br />would not recommend permit renewal until they were adeouately addressed. <br />These issues are summarized below, by category. <br />Hvdroloaic Impact <br />- Annual hydrologic reports including interpretation of data and <br />discussion of any trends or impacts for water years 1986, 1987 and <br />1988 have not been submitted. <br />- An updated probable hydrologic-consequences evaluation based on <br />observations made and data collected since Dermit issuance is <br />necessary. Differences between projected impacts and observed <br />impacts should be identified and discussed, so tnat the Division <br />can verify any impacts or lack of impacts to the surface and around <br />water systems, in order to prevent or mitigate material damage. <br />Topsoil 5a1VaDe and Replacement <br />- Topsoil balance projections need to be uDdzted based on volumes <br />salvaged to dzte. Division inspections indicate *_hzt substantially <br />more topsoil wzs salvaged than was originally projected. <br />- D15.reDan.^les re cardinD proposed disturbance acreaee and topsoil <br />reDiacement depths need to DE resolved. Tni; and the previous <br />CCnCe^~ affect both the magnitude Of the worst C25e d+:sturbance for <br />bO nGinO purpOSeS as Well a5 the dpprop riate tDDSpiI replacement _ <br />depth. <br />Operation Description - <br />- $tatu5 Of the ODeYatiOn With respect t0 pfi25e Of pit and fill <br />Development, facilities construction and projected timeframes needs <br />to be undated. Timeframes zs oriDinally projected were disrupted <br />by the long period of inactivity. The permit application text does <br />not accurately reflect the current status of the operation. <br />