Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1997. Present were David Berry and Susan Burgmaier of the Division, and Dan Bear and Jim <br />Stover representing Bear Coal Company. <br />During the August 3, 1994 bond release inspection, the Division identified a number of questions <br />regarding reclamation liability at the site. Issues identified were the presence of highwalls at the <br />Bear No. 1 and 2 portals, the presence of coally material at the pre-law tipple area, whether Bear <br />Coal Company had conducted the required subsidence monitoring at the sites, the last date of <br />augmented seeding, the status of liability in the loadout area, debris remaining on site, and the <br />bridge abutments at the loadout. Those issues were resolved as follows: <br />The report issued for the August 3, 1994 inspection indicated that the Bear No. 1 Mine had <br />three 2-3' highwall remnants associated with the mine entries. These highwall features <br />existed prior to August 3, 1977, and the Division finds that reclamation of these features <br />complies with Section 4.14.1(2)(f). The Bear No. 2 Mine had one 15' scarp feature above <br />the backfilled portal faceup. Bear Coal Company provided the Division with information <br />indicating that the Bear No. 1 Mine portal faceups had been graded into an existing <br />(naturally occurring) rock face which was above the portal faceup highwall. Because of this, <br />there still appears to be a highwall above the bench fill; but these scarp areas are actually <br />undisturbed preexisting landslide scarps. The 1994 inspection identified a berm a[ the Mire <br />No. 2 area which might have been used to reduce the scarp at the No. 2 portal. The <br />operator estimates that the berm consists of roughly 300 yards of material which would <br />eliminate roughly 1.3 feet of the 15' highwall. The disturbance this would create, in an area <br />with limited topsoil, would not be outweighed by the benefit of a 1.3' reduction of the <br />highwall. This small berm area is not considered a significant or reasonable source of <br />backfill material. All reasonably available material has been used to effect reclamation of <br />the Bear No. 1 and No. 2 Mine sites. <br />The operator provided information indicating that the portals were reclaimed to a stable <br />configuration, which is verified in the 1981 slope stability analyses ofthe portal reclamation <br />plan. The 1981 report indicates that if additional material were available, and if such <br />backfill material were placed higher against the highwall than is currently existing, the <br />backfill would be less stable than the existing configuration. The existing highwall remnants <br />appear to be sufficiently stable at this time. <br />There are no exposed coal seams, toxic and/or acid forming materials exposed at the Bear <br />No. 1 and No. 2 sites. Based on this information and on observations during the November <br />20, 1997 inspection, the Division finds that the Mine No. 1 and No. 2 portal reclamation <br />complies with all applicable laws and regulations. <br />The coal material located in the vicinity of the pre-law tipple is the result of activities <br />conducted prior to the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act <br />(SMCRA). The tipple area was not used in conjunction with operations conducted after <br />SMCRA. Accordingly, Bear Coal Company does not have any reclamation liability for any <br />surface disturbance in the tipple area. <br />Bear No. 1 and 2 Mires Bond Release Page 3 <br />