Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Robert Hagen - 2 - July 15, 1991 <br />Overburden is defined at Rule 1.04(83) as the material which overlies a coal <br />deposit. The reclaimed excavation at the Cameo seam portal, due to its <br />location below the coal seam, did not involve a highwall as defined within the <br />regulations. <br />The reclaimed topography has also not resulted in the retention of a spoil <br />pile. Spoil 1s defined at Rule 1.04(122) as overburden that has been removed <br />during surface coal mining operations. No such pile exists at the site 1n <br />question. Finally, the reclaimed topography has not resulted in a depression. <br />In summary, we believe that the area has been reclaimed in accordance with the <br />approved plan, and the approved plan was properly designed to achieve <br />approximate original contour as defined at Rule 1.04(13). The reclamation has <br />not resulted in retention of a highwall, spoil pile or depression. <br />Possible Violation #2 <br />The TDN states that the Mined Land Reclamation Division allowed a release of <br />bond which resulted in the operator's "failure to maintain the entire bond <br />amount required by the approved permit until such time as a bond release is <br />authorized under Rule 3.03". As stated in the Office of Surface Mining <br />inspection report, a bond adjustment occurred during 1990. The adjustment <br />reduced the bond from $141,000 to $90,000. Much of the adjustment was based <br />upon an acknowledgement that some of the originally proposed disturbance at <br />the Fruita Mine never occurred. We believe that this portion of the <br />adjustment was proper. It appears, however, that some of the reduction was <br />granted as credit for reclamation work performed. This portion of the <br />reduction will be rescinded. Specifically, the Division proposes to review <br />the bond adjustment, and we will rescind that portion of our decision which <br />involved credit for reclamation work completed. We will complete our review <br />of the adjustment and modify our decision to correlate with this discussion. <br />Possible Violation #3 <br />The TDN indicates that the operator failed "to examine all sedimentation <br />ponds" in accordance with Rule 4.05.6(10). We have approved an annual <br />inspection schedule, as allowed by Rule 4.05.6(10). However, the operator has <br />failed to supply the required reports on a consistent basis. Asa result, we <br />have decided to issue Notice of Violation C-91-007, for failure to comply with <br />Rule 4.05.6(10). <br />Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this response. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~ <br />Steven G. Renner <br />Coal Program Supervisor <br />SGR/ern <br />CC: David Berry <br />Larry Routten <br />69oiF <br />