Laserfiche WebLink
Introduction <br />This document presents the results of the Division's review of Peabody Coal <br />Company's request for full liability release for portions of their Nucla Mine, <br />submitted April 17, 1989. This request was submitted in accordance with <br />Rule 3.03.2. The review was conducted to fulfill the requirements of Rule <br />3.03.2(2), Rule 3.03.2(5)(a), and Rule 2.05.5(1)(a). <br />Rule 3.03.2(2) requires that the Division conduct an inspection and evaluation <br />of the area involved after a request for liability release has been received. <br />The inspection to fulfill this requirement was conducted by the Division <br />on May 31, 1989. Surface and mineral owners within the permit boundary were <br />notified and offered the opportunity to participate in the inspection. <br />Mr. Pat Warren of Montrose County and Mr. Jim Lunan of Peabody Coal Company <br />attended the inspection conducted by Mr. Carl Mount of the Division. <br />This May 31, 1989, inspection and subsequent evaluation are the basis for this <br />proposed decision. This inspection report is available for public inspection <br />at the Division offices. <br />Rule 3.03.2(5)(a) requires that the Division propose a decision on the <br />liability release request and provide written notification of the decision <br />to the permittee and other interested parties within 30 days of the <br />inspection. This proposed decision is subject to scutiny by the permittee, <br />and other interested parties. The Division's decision shall become final <br />within 30 days of its issuance unless a written request for an adjudicatory <br />hearing is received. <br />Rule 2.05.5(1)(a) requires a detailed narrative of the proposed post-mining <br />land use to be included in the permit application including the capacity of <br />the land to support a variety of alternate uses, and the relationship of the <br />proposed use to existing land use policies. Further consideration must be <br />given to the post-mining land use so that it is consistent with the surface <br />owner plans and programs. <br />