Laserfiche WebLink
Mid-Term Review <br />Apex No. 2 Mine - Permit C-81-011 <br />Introduction <br />This document presents the results of the Division's mid-term review of the <br />Sunland Corporation's Apex No. 2 Mine. The review was conducted to fulfill <br />the requirements of Rules 2.08.3, 2.06.2(9), 2.06.3(4), 2.06.5(3), 2.06.1(5) <br />and 3.02.2(4) <br />Rule 2.08.3 requires that the Division conduct a review of each permit issued, <br />prior to its mid-term. Based on this review, for good cause shown the <br />Division may require reasonable revision or modification of the permit <br />provisions to ensure compliance with the Act and the Regulations. <br />Rules 2.06.2, 2.06.3, 2.06.5, and 2.06.1 require that experimental practices, <br />mountain top removal variances, variances from AOC, and variances from <br />contemporaneous reclamation be reviewed by the Division where applicable. <br />Apex was granted a steep slope variance from AOC. Based on review of <br />available information, the variance was and is appropriate. No other special <br />categories of mining apply to the Apex No. 2 Mine. <br />Rule 3.02.2(4) requires that the Division review the amount of the bond and <br />the terms of acceptance of the bond every two and a half years. The amount of <br />the bond has been evaluated with respect to reclamation cost estimates and <br />determined to be adequate. However, a deficiency with respect to the Letter <br />of Credit bond has been previously noted by the Division (see enclosed letter <br />dated May 15, 1985). The required modifications to the letter of Credit as <br />outlined in the letter of May 15, 1985 must be completed by February 1, 1986. <br />The mid-term review consisted of a review of the Apex No. 2 Findings document, <br />permit application and revisions, to ensure that all permit conditions and <br />commitments were being met. Hydrologic monitoring data was reviewed to ensure <br />that required data was being submitted and to ensure the adequacy of the <br />monitoring plan. <br />A list of required revisions and justification for the revisions is presented <br />below: <br />1. Hydrologic Balance: Ground and Surface Water <br />A. The Mined Land Reclamation Division findings document indicates <br />(page 14) that two unadjudicated springs could be affected by <br />subsidence. The document further states that the operator will <br />monitor these springs. However, a review of the data submitted by <br />Apex indicates that they have not monitored these springs. A <br />further review of the application revealed that Apex never did <br />commit to monitor these springs. <br />