GENERAL48558 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. Off-site sedimentation. OSM and DNIG had identified GEC as having an off-site impact to the natural drainage during a February inspection of the property. You were sent a copy of the OSM inspection report outlining the concerns. A significant amount of sediment has left the disturbed area from [he gully formed on the area reclaimed b}' DIv1G. I have reviewed the photographs you posted on the Web and appreciate the pictures and locations you provided that show impacts from sediment deposition. During operations, and even during abandonment, sedimentation ponds and pits caught runoff from the site. DMG recognized that the reclamation bond money awarded after forfeiture and the bankruptcies was insufficient. Reclamation was started and the sedimentation ponds were removed with the idea of spending the available money to backfill, regrade, topsoil, and revegetate the area to quickly achieve a stable surface configuration. Removal of the ponds while equipment was onsi[e [o do the regrading eliminated future mobilization costs. Unfortunately, a viable permittee for the mine no longer exists that can be compelled to comply with performance standards addressing erosion and sediment deposition. The area where the gully has formed, and from which sediment has been deposited off-site, was reclaimed by DMG, not the permittee. DMG has spent all of the reclamation bond money on the property and additional reclamation or surface stabilization is unforeseen. OSM was aware of the fact that a large amount of sediment from the gully had left the site in February. Whereas the gully formed on reclamation work performed by DMG subsequent to permit revocation and bond forfeiture, and not the permittee, OSM did not at that time, nor at this time, find reason to believe that a performance standard violation exists for which the permittee should be issued an enforcement action. 5. Burning gob. Your position that the coal fire was caused by placement of burning gob against the coal seam has been addressed and answered as long ago as 1982. To restate OSM's findings from that time: "When the coal development waste from the Newlin Creek underground mine, which was being used to fill the surface mine, reached the toe of the highwall it caught fire. The fire in the waste material was limited to a small area near the burning abandoned mine. All indications are that the waste, which had minimal combustible content, was ignited by the pre-existing underground fire." Memorandum dated September 7, 1982 Our records indicated you have received this Memorandum, but I have attached another copy of it. Whereas new information has not been provided to warrant reopening the previous investigation, and the investigation that took place in 1982 was able to directly observe the affected areas, which are now buried because of fire mitigation and reclamation efforts, OSM will not revisit this issue and abides by its previous findings.