APPCOR11279 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ttessrs. Banta and Daws Page 3 October 29, 1981 Plans for Continuation of the Operation Bear Coal Company would like to initiate mining in an adjacent area, continguous with the existing Bear No. 1 and Bear No. 2 operations. Because these areas are adjacent to the existing operations, immediate environmental impacts would be minimal. The total production of Bear Coal Company would remain the same, approximately 250,000 to 300,000 tons of coal per year. Support facilities such as crushers, conveyors and metal buildings already owned by Bear Coal Company would only be moved to facilitate the mining. The total surface area to be disturbed at one time would not be different from that currently existing. Without approval to move into these adjacent reserves, the Bear Coal Company has no alternatives available to maintain existing levels of production and employment. The failure to acquire timely approval of proposed Bear No. 3 (dine plans will result in cessation of mining operations with accompanying loss of jobs, failure to meet market commitments, and adverse social and economic impacts to the local communities and surrounding areas. Our concerns were discussed with the Colorado Nine Land Reclamation Division at a meeting herd October 2, 1981. Attached for your reference is a copy of our letter to Idr. David C. Shelton stressing the urgency of our situation. Partial Aooroval At our October 2nd meeting, it was mentioned that the Division may be able to grant some relief to the bear Coal Company in the form of a partial approval of the mining plan. This partial approval would only allow for the relocation of surface facilities and not for the mining of coal in the adjacent area. A partial approval would provide the Bear Coal Company with the ability to move facilities into the area and, at the same time, maintain employment for those miners which otherwise would 6e laid off. Although a complete permit revision document will be submitted, review and approval would be granted first on the surface facility area followed shortly thereafter for the entire mine. lde v;ould like the Division to still maintain the option of a partial approval for surface facilities relocation; OSM indicated that this approach would be approved through the Solicitor's office, if possible. On behalf of our employees and our customers, we hope that the Division and the OSM will maintain the option of partial approval to help us continue our operation under the immediate prospect of diminishing rates of production and employment.