APPCOR10248 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Adequacy Review No. 3 Blue Flame Mine C-81-053 APPLICATION FORM 1. Upon a review of Blue Flame's response, the Division believes that Blue Flame is confused pertaining to "affected area" and "permit area". The "affected area" would be any and all acreage that will be disturbed or affected by this proposed mining operation. Since Blue Flame is attempting to mine a previously mined area, the term "affected area" is applicable to all previous disturbances at this site that will be re-disturbed by Blue Flame and any future areas to be disturbed. (Acreage of disturbance is app icable to surface disturbance and to areas above underground workings.) "Permit area", in the case of the Blue Flame mine, would be synonymous with "affected areas". Biue Flame is incorrect in assuming that "affected area" has a present- er past-tense connotation and that "permit area" has a future-tense connotation. Both affected and permit area relate to the lands associated with the mining operation. Therefore, Biue Flame should revise points 15 and 16 of the application form to reflect acreage per the above discussion. 2.03.4 Identification of Interests 1. After reviewing Blue Flame's reply pertaining to surface landowner, the Division is still in a quandary over who is the rightful landowner. A review of the Ouit-Claim Deed submitted specifies that Fidel and Theresa Lobate have legal right of entry to mine the coal seam. However, it does not address that the Lobato's own the land associated with this coal seam. Therefore, it would seem that Mr. Lawrence Huntington owns the land associated with this Deed. If this interpretation is incorrect please address this situation. If, however, Mr. Huntington is the legal surface landowner, we need this point addressed in the application and we need the letter addressing concurrence pertaining to the post-mining land use as addressed in Rule 2.05.5(2 )(b ). 2.03.9 Personal Injury and Property Damage Insurance Information 1. The most recent Certificate of Insurance received on June 19, 1986 does not have the rider as required by Rule 2,03.9(3). As previously mentioned, the Division cannot accept this policy unless this rider is placed on the insurance policy and is a part of the Certificate of Insurance. 2. As mentioned in the cover letter, Blue Flame will eventually need to revise all pages where changes were made during the adequacy review process. Therefore, the Division will not interlineate the words as requested.