Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Rick Siebei, Regional Director -8- May 16, 1995 <br />Office of Surface Mining <br />Western Region Coordinating Center <br />length. We believe both of these differences do not create a significant change in the premining <br />configuration of the gulch. <br />Finally, Mr. A.J. Iuppa, the surface landowner within whose property the mine disturbances lie, <br />has specifically requested the culvert remain. Leaving the culvert will allow for 1.07 acres of <br />additional grazing land to exist, and will provide access for the landowner to his property on the <br />south side of Starkville Gulch. The landowner has been informed that he will be responsible for <br />maintenance after EFMC is released from reclamation liability. EFMC has requested the <br />landowner provide a letter stating this understanding. <br />Based on the information provided herein, the Division informed AFO that the conditions cited <br />in Part One of this TDN did not represent a violation of Rule 4.05.4(4). <br />The Division also responded to Part Two of the TDN in our letter dated April 21, 1995 to AFO. <br />AFO bad stated that EFMC had "failed to restore disturbed areas to AOC. Slopes of refuse pile <br />(west and south slopes) pad slope by sediment catch basins. [Rule] 4.14.1(2)(a)." The Division <br />disagreed. <br />The Division, in its Apri121, 1995 response, informed AFO that Section 4.14.1(2)(e) specifically <br />states that material left over after all highwalls and depressions have been backfilled need not be <br />returned to "approximate original contour" and, as such, the statement by AFO that EFMC had <br />"failed to restore disturbed areas to AOC" was inappropriate. The Division further stated that <br />it found the west slope of the coal waste bank to be in compliance with the reclamation gradient <br />approved in the permit, as non of the three slope measurements was more than 0.58° steeper than <br />the approved 18.43° slope angle. <br />The Division also stated that the north-facing slope of the "pad" (the fotnter mine office area) <br />was specifically not part of EFMC's bond release request. A technical revision to redesign the <br />catch basins at the tce of the waste bank, of which the north-facing "pad" slope makes up one <br />inslope side of the basins, was being reviewed at the time of the March 8, 1995 Bond Release <br />Inspection. The Division concurred with AFO at the time of the inspection that one section of <br />the south-facing slope of the waste bank, that section being the other inslope of the catch basins, <br />exceeded the 18.43° slope angle significantly enough to warrant having that portion of the bond <br />release request denied. This was stated in the Division's April 7, 1995 Proposed Bond Release <br />Decision. <br />Because coal mine waste banks made of excess material left over after all highwalls have been <br />backfilled do not need to meet AOC, because the west-facing outslope of the Raton Creek waste <br />bank has been constructed to the approved outslope angle, because the Division specifically <br />denied the request for release of the portion of the south-facing outslope that measured 20.25°, <br />and because the north-facing "pad" slope (also the catch basin inslope) was being redesigned in <br />a technical revision at the time of the inspection and therefore not included by EFMC in the bond <br />