Laserfiche WebLink
Bebw .re comment as the tnepectlon. 1Le commmb Iodide dleciualoa of obsw~tlame male d~8 the loapectloo. <br />Commealc arco deacnbe eay en8orcemmt ~cdons hlrm d~ the fospectim god me Lcta ar evidence wppoctlog the <br />e~orcemmt atioo. <br />This was a partial inspection of the Bear No. 1, 2, and 3 Mines. The purposes of the <br />inspection were to evaluate the Bear No. 1 and 2 Mines for final bond release and to <br />observe the progress of reclamation to date at the Bear No. 3 Mine. The Bear No. 1 <br />and 2 Mines were reclaimed in 1982. The Bear No. 3 Mine has ceased mining and is <br />currently being reclaimed. <br />The Bear No. 1 and 2 mine areas were inspected to evaluate the success of <br />reclamation. The operator, in 1994, requested Phase I, II, and III bond release for this <br />portion of the permit area. The Division conducted a bond release inspection on <br />August 3, 1994, at which time a number of issues were identified which needed to be <br />addressed before the request for bond release could be approved. The purpose of <br />this subsequent inspection was to verify that those issues identified in 1994 had been <br />addressed. <br />The reclaimed Bear No. 1 and 2 Mine areas exhibited a dense, self-sustaining cover <br />of vegetation, which appeared adequate to control erosion. No erosional features <br />were observed on any of the reclaimed areas. <br />Slopes on the reclaimed portals were stable, with no signs of bulging, cracking, or <br />slumping. The initial (August 3, 1994) bond release inspection report indicated a <br />concern with possible highwall remnants at the reclaimed portals. The report included <br />observations of three 2-3' highwall remnants at the Bear No. 1 Mine. The report <br />indicated the Bear No. 2 Mine has one 15' scarp feature above the backfilled portal <br />faceup. Bear Coal Company provided the Division with information indicating that the <br />Bear No. 1 Mine portal faceups had been graded into an existing (naturally occurring) <br />rock scarp which was above the portal faceup or highwall. Because of this, there still <br />appears to be a highwall above the bench fill, but these scarps were actually <br />undisturbed preexisting bedrock exposures. The 1994 inspection identified a berm at <br />the Mine No. 2 area which might have been used to reduce the highwall at the No. 2 <br />portal. The operator estimates that the berm consists of roughly 300 cubic yards of <br />material which would eliminate roughly 1.3 feet of the 15' highwall. These estimates <br />area reasonable. The disturbance this would create, in an area with limited topsoil, <br />would not be outweighed by the benefit of a 1.3' reduction of the highwall. This small <br />berm area is not considered a significant or reasonable source of backfill material. <br />The operator provided information indicating that the portals were reclaimed to a <br />stable configuration, which is ver'rfied in the 1981 slope stability analyses of the portal <br />reclamation plan. Based on this information, and on observations during this <br />Bear NYnes November 20, 1997 <br />