Laserfiche WebLink
P & M submitted the bond release application following the procedures described in the Act and the <br />Regulations. The application also utilizes the Division's Guideline RegardlnQ Selected Coal Mine <br />Bond Release Issues, dated April 18, 1995. <br />Public Notice <br />P & M published notice of the bond release application in the Steamboat Pilot once weekly for <br />four consecutive weeks, beginning on September 14, 2003. P & M also notified landowners <br />within and adjacent to the mine permit area, and other interested parties of the application for <br />bond release, as required by Section 3.03.2(1). <br />Bond Release Inspection <br />The Division conducted a bond release inspection on October 8, 2003. The site inspection was <br />conducted in accordance with Section 3.03.2(2). Tom Kaldenbach represented the Colorado <br />Division of Minerals and Geology. Steve Leach of P & M represented the operator. P & M <br />owns all of the land surface in the bond release pazcel. Attending the introductory part of the <br />inspection, but not participating in the rest of the inspection, were Chris Wypych and Greg <br />Hansen of Yampa Valley Electric Association, and Ron Crawford. Yampa Valley Electric has a <br />powerline easement on the bond release pazcel. Ron Crawford has a hunting lease on the Edna <br />Mine. The Division notified the Office of Surface Mining and the Bureau of Land Management, <br />but they did not attend the inspection. Henry Austin of the Office of Surface Mining examined <br />the bond release pazcel two weeks eazlier during an oversight inspection of the Edna Mine. The <br />Division's inspection report is on file at the Denver office of the Division of Minerals and <br />Geology. <br />Following the inspection, the Division determined it had inadvertently failed to notify two land <br />owners of the inspection. The Division sent them a letter offering them the opportunity to <br />examine the bond release azea during one of the Division's upcoming monthly inspections. The <br />Division's letter explained that if a response was not received by December 1, 2003, then the <br />Division would assume the landowners had no interest in visiting the site. Neither landowner <br />responded. <br />Technical Review <br />The Division reviewed technical aspects of P & M's bond release submittal in order to determine if <br />the requested bond release is warranted. The review evaluated the methods that P & M used in <br />gathering and processing the data in the bond release application. The review considered the <br />technical validity of the conclusions that P & M presented in the application. The Division also <br />independently analyzed various hydrologic impacts. The Division then compazed P & M's <br />conclusions and the results of the Division's independent analyses to the requirements of P & M's <br />approved reclamation plan and to the regulatory requirements for bond release. <br />5 <br />