ENFORCE30685 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. David A. Berry 2 AFO believes DMG has taken appropriate action with one provision. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Directive INE-35 referenced by DMG states: "2. ... a time period has been established within which the regulatory authority will approve or disapprove the application for a permit revision that does not exceed thirty days unless the reaulatorv authority identifies an exceptional circumstance that would require a longer period of time to approve or disapprove the application for revision ..."(emphasis added). DMG commits to making a decision no later than January 31, 1995; a time period which may be substantially longer than 30 days, depending on when DMG decides the issue. If DMG takes longer than 30 days to approve or disapprove the revision, DMG must identify to AFO, in writing, prior to the end of the 30-day period, the exceptional circumstances that require additional time. With regard to the proper end land use designation, AFO understands the DMG response to state that Minor Revision 29 incorporated page 2.05-39 into the approved permit to define the land use category. This page identifies the post- mining land use for Bear Creek as undeveloped/public use whereas the previous post-mining land use had simply been identified as undeveloped. The approved Colorado program does not allow AOC variances for undeveloped land but does allow AOC variances in steep slope areas for public use lands. Page 2.05-39 from the permit states "The post mining land use of the ...Bear Canyon ventilation facilities, and the Bear Canyon B-seam degas site will be undeveloped/public use in recognition of the public's right to access and pass through these sites." The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Uncompahgre Basin Resource Area Office in Montrose has stated that there are no plans for any commercial or recreational use (e.g., trailhead or parking area) at the Bear Creek site. Therefore, AFO interprets this language as merely allowing an access road to remain across the area. This same page of the approved permit validates that interpretation in that atrailhead/parking area is actually addressed for the Hubbard Creek facilities but is not addressed for Bear Creek. AFO raises this point to clarify its position for DMG. The deviation from AOC for a two track access road will be expected to be significantly less than that required for a parking area. AFO cannot make a determination from DMG's response on the issue of landowner concurrence. AFO noticed a discrepancy between the DMG referenced letter from BLM that was presented to satisfy landowner concurrence, Minor Revision 25 approved July 7, 1994, and the post-mining land use designation revision, Minor Revision 29, approved September 23, 1994. The BLM letter states that BLM approves of the reclamation plan and " ... (We) understand the areas cannot be reclaimed to original contours because of the steep topography."