ENFORCE33347 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Steven G. Renner 2 indicates that, 'Following removal of mine facilities, buildings, and asphalt and sealing of underground mine openings, all areas affected by surface operation will be backfil2ed and graded as necessary * * *.' Figure 2.05,4A in the permit is a reclamation timetable which indicates that removal of structures at seven different portions of the mine will commence during 'year 1.' The same figure indicates that regrading of the North Decline Area will be completed during 'year 1.' The approved permit does not indicate that 'year 1' at the North Decline is different from 'year 1' at other portions of the mine. Rather, 'year 1' indicates that reclamation will commence the first year after mining is completed." MLRD's response further states: "The approved schedule meets all of the requirements of the State regulations." Information in the approved permit states that, as of December 31, 1986, 36,483,000 tons of clean coal was in place within the permit boundary. The permit also estimated a yearly production of 400,000 tons of coal, even though at the time only 190,000 tons was being produced. Using the figures obtained from the permit and subtracting the 5 years since 1986, the life of the mine would be another 86 years. To approve a schedule that defers any reclamation until the year 2077--should the mine operate that long--is not the intent of the contemporaneous reclamation regulations. The intent of the contemporaneous reclamation regulations is to ensure that reclamation activities will occur as soon as practicable after the disturbed area is no longer utilized in association with the active mining operation. In this case, reclamation should have been accomplished, at a minimum, within "year 1" from the date (5/90) that the North Decline portal area was permanently sealed. MLRD's response clearly indicates that the North Decline area is no longer associated with the active mining operations. MLRD, however, wishes to defer any further reclamation until after all mining is completed. AFO believes that MLRD's interpretation of the schedule in the approved permit does not meet the intent of Rules 4.13 and 4.14(1)(d); therefore, AFO finds that MLRD's response to TDN 91-02-352-001 constitutes an arbitrary and capricious response and is inappropriate. If you disagree with these findings, you may request an informal review in accordance with 30 CFR 842.11(b)(1)(ii)(A), Sincerely, obert H. Hagen, Di c r Albuquerque Field f ce