Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• DMG issued a Notice of Violation in 1993 for failure to <br />maintain diversion structures and since that time the <br />culvert has been diligently maintained. <br />• EFMC has been charged with the responsibility of <br />maintaining the culvert until such time as final bond <br />release is approved by DMG. <br />• After EFMC is released from reclamation liability the <br />surface landowner, within whose property the mine <br />disturbances lie and who has specifically requested that the <br />culvert remain, will assume responsibility for maintenance <br />of the culvert. <br />• On the basis of this information, culvert stability <br />concerns, as well as the potential environmental impact of <br />any future failure of the culvert, are minimal at best. <br />• Lastly, the Raton Creek underground mine site area has <br />been mined since the late 1800's and, as such, no <br />predisturbance maps or photographs exist to illustrate the <br />natural land contours. <br />Part 2 of the TDN alleges that EFMC has failed to restore the <br />west- and south-facing slopes of a coal mine waste bank and a pad <br />slope by sediment catch basins to AOC. DMG asserts that Section <br />4.14.1(2)(e) of the Colorado regulations specifically states that <br />material left over after all highwalls and depressions have been <br />backfilled need not be returned to AOC and, as such, AFO'S <br />allegation that disturbed areas had not been returned to AOC was <br />inappropriate. More specifically, Section 4.14.1(2)(e) applies <br />only to fills associated with the face-up area of underground <br />mines. DMG further states that although the slope angle <br />measurements for the three west-facing outslopes of the coal mine <br />waste bank were steeper than that allowed by the permit <br />requirements (18.43°), the measurements were less than the <br />regulatory maximum (26.57°) and were within the acceptable margin <br />of error for hand-held Abney level measurements. Finally, DMG <br />responded that the north-facing slope of the "pad" was <br />specifically not part of EFMC's bond release request. <br />For the following reasons, I find that DMG has appropriately <br />addressed the issue raised in Part 2 of the TDN. <br />• Coal mine waste disposal facilities are not subject to <br />the approximate original contour requirements of 30 CFR <br />817.102 or Section 4.14.1 of the Colorado regulations. <br />Rather, the configuration of these facilities must be <br />suitable for postmining land use and must be compatible with <br />the natural surroundings (see 30 CFR 817.81(a)(3) and <br />817.83(b)(2). <br />3 <br />