_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (252)

Home Browse Search

' r Page 3 Final reclamation of this road includes removal of the culverts. This will make accessing the portal area more limited. An alternative to MCR's proposal would be to reclaim the approximately 1.3 miles of road from Mine 5 portal to the southern fork of a tributary of Coal Creek. All but about .3 miles of road are on private land. After the completion of reclamation of Mine 5, MCR has indicated that Mine 4 could be reclaimed because most of the salvage work has been completed. We support the reclamation of the portal and exploration road located above the portal site. As is the case with Mine 5 Road, we recommend delaying its' final reclamation until the portal is satisfactorily reclaimed. After what we have observed in the base area, we recommend the immediate reclamation of the old waste refuse pile followed by the Suety Pile. Pre- and Post-Law Reclamation There have been discussions on what constitutes pre- and post-law disturbances and therefore who is ultimately responsible for their reclamation. MLRD in Tony Waldron's May 14,1993 letter to Mike Mechau states that a compromise was reached with MCR that "we (MLRD) will accept MCR's proposal to apply an organic amendment and seed these areas in return for not applying bond release standards for vegetative cover to this area." Most of these areas that we have observed have exposed trash. They are also gullied and their surfaces are crusted. The compromise does not address these problems. In addition, the test plots done on similar sites had some success because they were scarified, fertilized, seeded, mulched, and netted. It is our opinion that applying only fertilizer and seed to a crusted surface, without using other proven test plot treatment, MCR's proposed treatments will result in failure. Ability to Perform Reclamation We have been told by MCR that we are probably going to be disappointed if we expect too much in the way of reclamation because of the limited funds MCR is receiving from the bankruptcy court. According to Coal Program Supervisor Steve Renner's May 19, 1993 letter to Kevin Riordan, "The provisions of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act requires that the permittee reclaim the site to the standards of the Act and the approved permit" . Therefore, we should know what to expect and we should not be disappointed. We have been told that MCR (Pitkin Iron) has the equipment to accomplish the reclamation. However, the tractor dozer is still undergoing repairs. With the short operating season the earth moving should have already started. Again according to Steve Renner's letter "If, for wherever reasons, Mid-Continent does not perform the reclamation tasks at the site, the Division will pursue other options to achieve reclamation". Would one of the reasons "to pursue other options" be the starting and completing the project or agreed to portions of the project on schedule? One suggestion we made to Tony Waldron was that MLRD provide a representative to work on-site with MCR. This individual would be responsible for recording the hours that the equipment is actually working on the reclamation project. He or she would also be available to monitor the work and approve the work, "that meets the standards of the Act and the approved permit". I would think it appropriate for reclamation funds to be used to pay for this person.