Laserfiche WebLink
The Division received no written objections, or requests for an informal conference regarding the <br />bond release application. On September 28, 2004 the Division received a letter from T. David <br />Williams, on behalf of his clients, Ted and Frederick Heyde, adjacent landowners. The letter <br />requested a copy of the bond release application and other information, and expressed concerns with <br />potential ground water contamination. The Division forwarded a copy of the letter to CEC on <br />September 29, 2004 and responded to Mr. Williams in a letter on October 18, 2004. <br />Upon request from the Division, the operator revised the dollar amount of the bond release request <br />by a letter received August 12, 2005 to $287,918 mainly to reflect the bond release percentage limits <br />of Section 3.03.2. <br />III. CRITERIA FOR BOND RELEASE <br />The bond release application is for phase I release. Phase I release is allowed by Section 3.03.1(2)(a) <br />which states, "Up to sixty percent of the applicable bond amount shall be released when the <br />permittee successfully completes backfilling, regrading, and drainage control in accordance with the <br />approved reclamation plan." The approved reclamation plan calls for backfilling mine pits to the <br />approximate original contour (permit page 113). Appendix (map) Q-3 shows premining topographic <br />contours. <br />IV. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS <br />Backfilling and regrading. During the bond release inspection the topography in the bond release <br />area was compared to premining topography as it is shown on map Appendix Q-3 in the permit <br />application. Also the topographic contours shown on map Appendix L-5 in the bond release <br />application of the bond release application were compared to premining contours on map Appendix <br />Q-3. Both the premining and postmining land surfaces are gently rolling topography. In the bond <br />release area, the locations of low and high areas coincided with those on the premining contour map. <br />Slope magnitudes also were similar. Slope stability problems were not evident on this gently rolling <br />land. Based on the comparison of postmining and premining topography made during the bond <br />release inspection, and the ground stability, the Division finds the operator has completed backfilling <br />and regrading in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. <br />Drainage control. Runoff from the bond release area is routed to two ponds which the Division has <br />previously approved as permanent features, pond #2 and the dugout pond. Hillslope runoff from the <br />bond release area would flow to the ponds via roadside ditches that would remain next to access <br />roads that also have been approved as permanent. Positive drainage appeared to exist throughout <br />the drainage route from backfilled areas to the ponds. No signs of erosional instability were found in <br />the bond release area. No sediment fans or gully erosion were evident. Based on the observations <br />made during the inspection, the Division finds that the operator has completed reestablishment of <br />drainage in the bond release area in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. <br />4