GENERAL36692 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mathews, Dan From: Mathews, Dan Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 6:05 PM To: Brown, Sandy Cc: Shuey, Steve Subject: Roadside Loadout I met with Jim Stover and representatives from Uhited Companies (a gravel mining/construction company) earliertoday, regarding the Roadside Loadout. As you can probably guess, the topic of conversation was the petmitting and bond release processes that would need to be followed, to allow for release of the coal permit and bond so that United Companies could mine the gravel deposit within and adjacent to the loadout. They seemed pretty serious. I invited Steve Shuey to sit in on the meeting, to get the Minerals Program perspective on the process. Basically, I reiteratetl the approach we outlined in the letter of January 12, 2000, for the "fast track" scenario, which is what they envision. There were some sticky details that came up, and I will relate here what we discussed. Item 1 from the 1/12!2000 letter stated: Coal permittee initiates reclamation, removing any facilities that won't be used in a gravel operation, and fully reclaiming areas that would not be mined. A couple issues were raised in regard to this item. My impression is that a portion of the current coal disturbance would be disturbed by actual gravel excavation, and that most or maybe all of the remaining coal disturbance area would be used for stockpiles and other facilities ancillary to the gravel extraction. First, Stover wanted to clarify that any areas that would be disturbed under the gravel permit would be exempt from "full reclamation under the coal permit", and not solely those areas that would be "mined". I said that we agreed that full reclamation under the coal permit would be required only for those areas that would not be disturbed under the gravel permit, and that the "exemption" would apply to stockpile and ancillary disturbances as well as to areas of actual gravel extraction. Second, Stover stated that his interpretation was that, for those areas to be disturbed under the gravel permit, reclamation to coal permit standards would be limited to facilities demolition and disposal, and would not include the requirement to backfill the site to AOC. I indicated that I believed that to be the case (based on our letter), but I also stated that coaly material at the site would need to be scraped up and hauled to the CRDA-1 refuse site as specified in the coal permit reclamation plan. The extent of demolition, site grading and clean-up to be completed under the Industrial Land Use scenarto would be addressed in the Postmine Land Use change permit revision application. [Note, I think I mentioned previously that if someone were a stickler, AOC could be an issue. Rule 4.14.1(2)(a) requires restoration of AOC with the exception of specific listed exemptions. There is no specific AOC exemption in our rules pertaining to alternative postmine landuse. Rule 4.14.1(2)(b) requires that backfilled material be placed to support the postmining land use. For an industrial land use, these requirements may come into conflict, because AOC topography may not support the land use. In this case, I assume our position is that land use trumps AOC, in the same way that land use trumps AVF restoration. Let me know if you have a different take on this. By the way, this same issue may come up in the future when and if we receive a land use change revision for the South Mine Portal Bench Area.] Item 2 from the 1/12%2000 letter stated: Coal permittee applies for and obtains approval for a postmine land use change to industrial, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4.16.3. There weren't any questions regarding this item Item 3 from the 1/12/2000 letter stated Gravel operator obtains all necessary permits and approvals for gravel extraction, and coal permittee applies for bond release for the area to be affected by gravel operations. Upon demonstration that the indusMal land use (gravel mining) "has substantially commenced and is likely to be achieved" (3.02.2(2)(c)), the coal bond could be released. Note that for some period of time until release of the coal bond, the area permitted for gravel operations would be permitted and bonded under both the Coal and Mineral Programs. Stover raised the following question. Assume the point has been reached where facilities demolition and site cleanup has been completed, and gravel permit has been secured and extraction initiated. It is likely that there will be some portions of