REV105626 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

further records research and consult with BLM (surface landowner) to resolve certnin questions regarding road reclamation requirements. Questions regarding the adequacy of road reclamation was raised with respect to the following locations: PCC-04 and OS access road road stabilized by vegetation but not completely obliterated). PCC-10 access road not fully obliterated from end of permanent road tojunction of PCC-10 reclaimed road with PCC-9 reclaimed road. PCC-01 road not completely obliterated. PCC-02 access road initial segment not completely obliterated. There were no erosional problems noted with regard to the road segments mentioned, but grading had not completely eliminated the roads in some locations. The operator was duetted to contact BLM, the surface land management agency, regarding their opinion on the need for further reclamation work. The January 7, 1998 letter from Catherine Robertson of BLM Grand Junction Resource Area to Larry Reschke (then with Powderhorn Coal Company), documents an inspection conducted by Bruce Fowler and Dave Trappett of BLM, on September 3, 1997. In the letter, Ms. Robertson states that "the inspection included three access roads to drill holes identified as PCC-OI through PCC-10..." Specific comments regarding BLM's desire for further reclamation work on the road segments in question include the following: This access (ro PCC-lO) has been identified for use in the Grand Mesa Slopes recreation plan and therefore we do not want arty additional reclamation completed on this access. The reclamation requirements for [the access road to PCC-4 and SJ was to install waterbars and to seed it. This work has been completed Vegetation has been established and additional reclamation would be counter productive as i! would cause additional unnecessary erosion. BLM does no! want any additional disturbance to occur on this reclaimed area. This road (the access to PCC-01 through 03J has been reclaimed to the requirements of the approved plan. Specifically, BLM requested !trot the portion ojthe access road south and west ojthe South Portals [actually, the 2-West Portals) be left in place and nor recontovred... This was requested to facilitate livestock management. Therefore, the BLM does not want arty additional reclamation completed on this access road. In summary, the BLM in their letter indicated their satisfaction with each of the road segments identified as possibly needing additional reclamation work by DMG. BLM specifically requested that no further reclamation work be performed on these roads, and they identified no additional concerns regarding reclamation of the roads or drill pads. This determination was re-affirmed by Dave Trappett and Bruce Fowler of BLM, during the bond release inspection on August 14, 2001. Based on the 1997 inspections conducted by DMG and BLM, it was determined that no further inspection of the sites was warranted at this time. Further, based on those inspections and BLM's satisfaction with the reclamation conducted, it is my conclusion that drill hole sealing, drill sitebackfilling, and drill site access road reclamation associated with sites PCC-Ol through PCC-] 0 was satisfactorily completed and qualifies for Phase I bond release. One additional drill site (G WMS-03) was approved under the South Lease Exploration Plan, and the drill hole was sealed. However two additional monitoring wells were drilled at this location, and reclamation of this site will not occur until the monitoring is terminated and the wells (GWMS 03a and 03b) are sealed (see Item 56 of the current cost estimate). Adequacy Item 8 requested additional documentation including approved and existing cross sections and documentation of compliance with construction and reclamation requirements associated with the reclaimed benches of CRDA-I and CRDA-2, for which Phase 1 bond release was requested.