1986-11-28_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Date: 11/28/1986
• Doc Name: Bid Documents ‎(IMP)‎
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Memo/Re:MC Mid-term Bond Resp. - 2 - July 14, 1986
In order to deal with the lack of an approved reclamation plan, Jim Herron of
the Division staff was required to make certain assumptions with respect to
backfilling and grading of the disturbed areas in the original bond
calculations. In order to balance a worst case assessment and possible
exemption from AOC requirements, Mr. Herron estimated partial backfilling
volumes which would both be reasonable with respect to feasibility and cost,
and provide adequate reclamation of the site. I would like to emphasize that
these estimates were not based on meeting AOC requirements. I have continued
to use these estimates in my mid-term review. Therefore, the operator's
interpretation that calculations were based on AOC is false.
In addition, the operator's proposed plan for haul road reclamation utilizes
"natural sloughing" to decrease road widths. This plan is not acceptable to
the Division. Sloughing cannot be expected to be uniform either spatially or
temporally; and therefore, it is likely that pockets where ponding may occur
will form on the road surface. Such ponding could potentially lead to
instability of fills and in the slumped cut slopes. It is for this reason
that partial backfilling of the roads is required.
In our recent meeting, the operator proposed to submit a detailed plan which
accomplishes partial backfilling utilizing material from the cut slopes,
rather than pulling up material from the fills. This submittal will also
include cross-sections and volumes for both the road and bench backfilling
plans. The plan should also include an estimate of any additional area which
will be disturbed as a result of pushing down or laying back the cut slopes.
The Division will evaluate this proposal when it is received. The Division
will continue to use the original assumptions and backfilling volumes until an
alternate plan is approved.
The response from the operator also indicates a misinterpretation of the
Division's bonding procedures. In accordance with Rules 3.02.2 and 3.03.1 ,
the Division must retain sufficient bond to reclaim the (worst case)
disturbance on the site. The Division may not exempt areas from bonding based
on continuing studies, nor may it exempt areas based on assumed future
reclamation. Therefore, as previously stated, the Division must retain bond
for partial backfilling until such time that an alternate plan based on the
stability and reclamation study would be approved (pending the final results
of the study in 1987). In addition, bond must be retained on the upper
portions of the haul roads which will be "reclaimed" upon completion of the
rock tunnel until such time that this reclamation meets the appropriate bond
release criteria set forth in Rule 3.03.1 . The Division cannot exempt these
areas and "add them in later" as suggested on page 4 of the submittal .
In this section the operator also refers to a decision by Judge Flannery
regarding AOC as it relates to underground mines. As this case is presented
out of context and without the entire factual basis for the decision, the
Division fails to see how the Flannery decision relates to the Coal Basin
Mines, especially insofar as the Division has never anticipated requiring
Mid-Continent to "remove previously settled and revegetated land only to
achieve the purpose of a second revegetation". Mid-Continent is attempting to
use this decision to justify the interim reclamation of the haul roads to
30-40 foot widths following the rock tunnel completion as permanent