APPCOR12594 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F.__ ~~i iiiiiii~iiiii iii RAYE & ASSOCIATES 976 WELCH COURT ~ GOLDEN. COLORADO eOd01 • f3031 234~9e$$ April 18, 1984 f•1r. Brian Munson RECEIVED Senior Reclamation Specialist Colorado P1ined Land Reclamation Division 1313 Sherman Street, Room 423 APR 18 1984 Re: The Rockcastle Company Ponds 2&3 Reclamation MINED LAND RECLAMATIDN D141SION Colo. Dept of Natural Resources Dear Brian: The purpose of this letter is to review the history of the legal status of Ponds 2,3,&4 and to present options for reclamation of these ponds prior to your proposed decision on The Rockcastle Company's permit application. blot only will removal of Ponds 2&3 cause more environmental damage than benefits accrued, but The Rockcastle Company will suffer undue hardships if the final reclamation plan dictates removal of Ponds 2&3 to approximate original con- tour (AOC). I have been involved with this mine since its planning and permitting began in the summer of 1977. The original permit was submitted February 6, 1978, shortly after the OSM interim regs were published in December, 1977. In Exhibit G (4later Information) of the original permit application, The Rock- castle Company stated: "At the end of the mining effort, these sedimentation ponds will be filled in so that no runoff water will be collected." In this application, no attempt was made to address the OSP1 interim regs, but the t1ined Land Reclamation (P1LR) specialist (Margaret Koperski) asked the company to address the OSM regs. This was done by an exchange of letters. The per- mit was issued in ttay, 1978. Once the permanent OSM regs were published and corresponding MLR coal regs were promulgated, The Rockcastle Company timely:submitted a new and in-depth application on February 17, 1931. The new application went into detail on baseline, mine planning and reclamation requirements. The Rockcastle Company began following the mine plan in the new application, understandably assuming this would be the basis for final bond release. Although written approval for the new mine plan was never received, tacit approval for the new mine plan was given by F1LR since inspectors knew that Pits 2&3 were being reclaimed with no overburden or topsoil saved to reclaim Ponds 2&3. Further, The Rock- castle Company stated in the new application that "All areas disturbed by mining will be revegetated except roads and ponds." (p. IV-1). I think you will agree that The Rockcastle Company has been open in its in- tent not to backfill Ponds 2,3,&4. This is consistent with the new mine plan and with the wishes of the landowner. Although the plan has been to leave Pond 4 open as well, since this is an active pit, enough overburden and topsoil can be stockpiled nearby to reclaim it. The landowner would like some depression there to collect as much water as possible. But to suddenly force The Rockcastle Company to reclaim Ponds 2&3 to AOC unques- tionably creates an unfair hardship. Progress Within Environmental Tolerances