Laserfiche WebLink
4. <br /> <br />Mr. Springer - 5 - January 30, 1987 <br />E. The Topsoil Plan Map (Map 1, Exhibit 23 of the Mid-term Review <br />document) currently does not indicate the areas which were stripped <br />of topsoil. This needs to be indicated on the map. <br />13. The Division is currently reviewing the reclamation bond amount required <br />to reclaim the mine-related disturbance at the Bear No. 1, No. 2 and No. <br />3 mines. Recalculation of the bond is necessary to insure that all <br />proper reclamation goals are achieved. Recalculation of the bond is also <br />warranted becaus? of Be:.r s shifting permit bound.yry and r=clama~ion <br />responsibilities. Bear's reclamation responsibility at Bea° No. 1 and <br />No. 2 has been reduced due to relocation of the North Fork of the <br />Gunnison River and shifts in reclamation responsibility with 'Test Elk <br />Coal Company. The facilities at Bear No. 3 have also changed. The <br />Di visi m may request additional information from Bear Coal Company for <br />the bond calculation. P!c in~ormation regarding the bond calculation is <br />requested at this `ime. <br />The Division is requesting that Bear Coal Company submit its adequacy <br />responses prior to P•larch 15, 1987 in order to complete the permit renewal <br />ahead of schedule. A meeting Letween Bear Coai Company and the Division; <br />prior to the drafting of the responses, may speed the renewal process and <br />avoid spending unnecessary time and money resolving undisputed or extraneous <br />i.sues. This meeti~; Si-,CJid t:k= place as soon as possible. Feel free to <br />contact me if yc~ have any questions regarding the adequacy comments or the <br />proposed meeting. <br />Sincerely, <br />Brent Anderson <br />Rec'amation Sp?c~aiist <br />3A!iml <br />6982E <br />