Laserfiche WebLink
i ~ <br /> <br />based on the fact that no mining and onlq reclamation will be <br />conducted during the renewal term. Grand Mesa has previously in- <br />dicated that the renewal will be for "reclamation only " Fur- <br />thermore, no reclamation activities will take place within the <br />300-foot limit with respect to these dwellings because there was <br />neither surface disturbance nor surface effects of subsidence <br />requiring any reclamation work. Thus, Grand Mesa will not be <br />conducting "surface coal mining and reclamation operations" of <br />any sort within the 300-foot limit during the renewal term. As a <br />result, there will be no "surface coal mining operations closer <br />than 300 feet" for any of the owners to consent to, thereby <br />removing the prerequisites for any waiver under subsection (v). <br />Second, because there will be no mining or reclamation occurring <br />within the 300-foot limit during the renewal term, it would be <br />appropriate to delete these areas from the permit area, probably <br />through a simple bond release process. If sll such areas were no <br />longer within the permit area, then that would eliminate the <br />other prerequisite for "consent waivers" in subsection (d)(v). <br />Grand Mesa would like to discuss what would be required to obtain <br />bond release and deletion of these areas from the permit area. <br />The division should have in mind that Grand Mesa does not present <br />these possible solutions merely as technicalities to avoid the <br />waiver requirement, but rather because waivers make no sense un- <br />der the present circumstances of the mine. Not only will there <br />be no additional mining, but dwelling owners are fully protected <br />against any extremely unlikely subsidence damage that may occur <br />in the future by Grand Mesa's obligations under Rule 4.20.2(2). <br />Requiring waivers in addition to this protection, after instead <br />of before mining, would only accomplish one thing -- providing <br />the dwelling owners with the opportunity to extract financial <br />compensation solely for their signature on a piece of paper, not <br />in considez•ation for any risk of damage that they would under- <br />take. <br />Grand Mesa believes that the sensibility of its position is un- <br />questionable, and so the issue becomes how to satisfy the rule <br />without the necessity for waivers. We request the opportunity to <br />discuss the two approaches described above and any other alterna- <br />tives to the same end which we may be able to identify together. <br />We look forward to hearing your thoughts on these points and when <br />a meeting would convenient for Mike, any other appropriate Divi- <br />sion representatives and you. <br />Sincerely, <br />. ~w"-L <br />Jim Stover, P.E. <br />Chief Engineer <br />cc: R. L. Fanyo <br />