GENERAL32898 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. Subsidence monitoring was not required under the Bear No. l and 2 Mines permit. The Division has, however, based on subsidence monitoring conducted under the Bear No. 3 Mine permit and the neighboring West Elk Mine permit, been able to determine that there has not been a negative effect from subsidence of the Bear No. 1 and 2 Mine workings. The Division asserted that it was possible that interseeding occurred as late as 1985, based on information in the Division's "Findings of Compliance..." documents issued for Bear Mine permitting actions. Bear Coal Company did not provide information as to the accuracy of the Division's assertion, but did note, in a letter dated September 2, 1994, that any interseeding conducted in 1985 would be within the first five years of the extended liability period, and that such activities are permissible under Section 4.15.7(5). The Divsion finds this response acceptable. It was not clear whether the entire loadout disrurbance area had been redisrurbed by various entities. A review of the permit area boundaries, aerial photographs of the Bear loadout during its operational phase, and the current boundaries for activities of other entities, it is apparent that Bear Coal Company no longer has a reclamation liability for rte loadout area. All loadout area disturbance lies within either the Mountain Coal Company permit area and surface disturbance, the railroad right of way, the new State Highway 133 right of way, or the old State Highway 133 prescriptive use area. These areas are actively used and maintained by these three entities. The 1994 report included observations of debris (hoses, culverts, pipe, pallets) which needed to be removed. The 1997 inspection verified that the materials had been removed. The 1994 report indicated that the remaining bridge abutments on the banks of the North Fork of the Gunnison River needed to be removed. Bear Coai Company provided eviience that the Division had approved retention of the abutments in 1982, and also provided concurrence on their retention from the Department of Transportation. The 1997 inspection did not result in the identification of additional questions or concerns. Based on both site inspections, the Division believes that reclamation conducted at the Bear No. 1 and 2 Mines is incompliance with the approved plan and the Rules, and does not find reason to deny Beaz Coal Company's request for bond release. II. CRITERIA AND SCHEDULE FOR BOND RELEASE Phase I Bond Release Section 3.03.1(2)(a) states, "Up to sixty percent of the applicable bond amount shall be released when the permtttee successfully completes backfilling, regrading, and drainage control in accordance with the approved reclamation plan." With regard to Phase I bond release, [he approved reclamation plan for [he Bear No. I and 2 Mines required sealing and backfilling the portals, and regrading the disrurbed area to approximate original contour. Bear No. / and Z Mitres Bond Release Page 4