My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP25625
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP25625
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:57:09 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 4:16:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1982155
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
4/1/1982
Doc Name
ANNUAL REPORTS CHRISTIAN PITS AREA 1&2 77-557 & 77-558
Permit Index Doc Type
ANNUAL FEE / REPORT
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />• CHRISTIAN PITS Page 3 <br />the 1976 permit boundaries but about on the 1974 permit boundaries. Also, a small <br />area has been operated in an old pit south of area #2 for which no permit has ever <br />been obtained as it was originally mined prior to 1973. <br />It is apparent that many problems exi~.t with these two operations. Some of the <br />problems were the result of Schmidt-Tiago not being fully aware of the permit re- <br />quirements. Other problems were caused by erroneous actions on the part of the <br />staff of the Division of Mined Land Reclamation. There is little point in haggling <br />over legal responsibilities because finger pointing rarely accomplishes anything and <br />fingers can be pointed at nearly everybody in this case, all the way back to early 1974. <br />The important activity at this time is to correct the problems. <br />Until the problem is solved Schmidt-Tiago has voluntarily shut down area #1 because <br />the extraction area is beyond the 1976 permit boundary although within the 1974 permit <br />boundary. Schmidt-Tiago will also cease affecting any land outside the permit boundary <br />on area #2. <br />Corrective action would include a complete examination of the pit plans and on-the- <br />ground workings followed by submittal of an amendment to each area which would include <br />all areas affected to date and additional land up to the limit of the company's bonding <br />capability. A floating bond may be determined to be desirable and feasible although at <br />this time the flat-rate bond would be preferred. This appears to be the only way to <br />correct this highly complex problem which has gone through so many hands and stretches <br />back over 8 years in it's evolution. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.