Laserfiche WebLink
additional reclamation work will be performed at the lower area. This additional work includes the <br />removal of the East Roatcap Creek culvert and the two sediment ponds and additional backfilling and <br />grading work to achieve approximate original contour. <br />BRL also requested bond release for the removal of coal at the highway temporary coal stockpile. The <br />Division's inspection report of December 4, 2000 served as documentation that the coal had been <br />removed from this area. <br />During the June 10, 2003 inspection, BLM personnel stated that they had no problems with the portal <br />sealing or backfilling and grading work at the West Mine. BLM also stated that they had no problems <br />with the West Ridge waste pile at the East Mine. During the inspection at the East Mine, Mr. Pavlisick <br />had no issues with the work that had been done. However, Mr. Pavlisick did comment that he did not <br />want the road to the upper bench eliminated and that the electric company may have aright-of--way. <br />During the June 10, 2003 inspection, the BLM had concerns about a rock scarp along the livestock trail in <br />the southwest area of the West Mine. The Division had a concern about the size of the lower portion of <br />the reclaimed West Mine and whether or not there would be enough room to place all of the excavation <br />material when the East Roatcap Creek culvert was excavated. Also, the backflled vent shaft at the West <br />Mine did not have an appropriate concrete cap. Additional information regarding cover depth was needed <br />at the West Ridge waste pile so a second field inspection was planned. Copies of the Division's June 10, <br />2003 inspection report were sent to all parties involved in the field inspection. <br />A second field inspection was held at the East Mine on July 15, 2003. Basil Bear represented the operator <br />during this inspection. The other parties declined to attend. The purpose of this second inspection was to <br />verify the total cover depth and the topsoil cover depth on the West Ridge waste pile. The operator used a <br />tracked hydraulic excavator to dig nine test pits on the West Ridge waste pile. Each pit was dug until the <br />top of the refuse was uncovered. Total cover depth and topsoil cover depth were measured in each pit. <br />Regulation 4.10.4(5) requires that coal refuse is covered with four feet of non-toxic and non-combustible <br />material. Measurements at eight of the nine test pits showed that this total cover depth was achieved. At <br />the ninth test pit, however, the total cover was 3 feet 8 inches deep. This deficiency was considered a <br />localized anomaly since all of the other test pits showed at least 4 feet of cover. In addition, the deficiency <br />in total cover at this one location did not result in any problems with vegetative cover since the vegetative <br />cover over the ninth location was similar to the vegetative cover over the other areas of the waste pile. <br />The permit application also requires that 8 to 9 inches of topsoil be placed on the West Ridge waste pile. <br />The topsoil depths measured in the nine test pits were at or in excess of the minimum of 8 inches that is <br />required .The Division's inspection report from a special focus OSM oversight inspection, dated August <br />19, 1997, was used as documentation of the level of compliance of the West Ridge waste pile <br />construction and sediment control system. However, the operator had not surveyed in a boundary line to <br />determine if a portion of the West Ridge waste pile was on property owned by Martin and Jennie <br />Pavlisick, so a third field inspection was needed. <br />By the time of the Division's August 12, 2003 inspection, BRL had surveyed in the property line between <br />the BLM-managed property and the Pavlisick property, at the West Ridge waste pile. Only the Division <br />was present during this inspection. The location of the property line showed that only the northernmost tip <br />of the West Ridge waste pile was on the Pavlisick property. However, this northernmost tip is <br />unreclaimed. A small portion of the waste pile on BLM-managed property was also unreclaimed. <br />The Division sent out its second adequacy review responses in a letter dated October 24, 2003. Copies of <br />the adequacy review letter were sent to BRL, BLM and OSM. The letter summarized the resolution status <br />of the questions from the Division's first adequacy review letter, as well as those issues brought up in the <br />