Laserfiche WebLink
Memo/Re:MC Mid-term Bond Resp. - 3 - July 14, 1986 <br /> reclamation which should not be redisturbed. The post-mining land use (PMLU) <br /> of these roads is for forest access and, as such, should be reclaimed to 15-25 <br /> foot widths. It is the Division's finding that reclamation to 30-40 foot <br /> widths would not meet the PMLU. Sufficient bond must be retained by the <br /> Division to reduce the roads to 15-25 foot widths. Mid-Continent may then <br /> make an operational decision to: (a) reclaim to 15-25 foot widths at <br /> completion of the rock tunnel ; b) delay reclamation until mine closure; or, c) <br /> perform interim reclamation to 30-40 foot widths followed by additional <br /> backfilling at mine closure. <br /> III. Salvage Value. <br /> The Division' s bond calculations are based on a worst case analysis, and <br /> therefore does not normally consider salvage value. The salvage market is <br /> highly variable, and it is the Division's experience that salvage of scrap on <br /> a site may take extended periods of time. The Division is not in a position <br /> to become involved in such a market in the event of bond forfeiture. As an <br /> alternative calculation procedure, the Division may accept a demolition <br /> estimate from a reputable contractor. <br /> The Division will accept the revised demolition costs contained in the <br /> June 30, 1986 submittal , provided that an additional $1000.00 (per portal ) is <br /> included for a cinder block wall/buttress within each portal . Installation of <br /> these walls is included in the reclamation plan (Chapter V, page 46). <br /> IV. Revegetation Costs. <br /> Rule 3.02.20 ) requires the Division to calculate bond based on ". . . the <br /> completion of the reclamation plan if the work had to be performed by the <br /> Board, through independent contractors . . .". Based on this requirement, the <br /> cost incurred by the operator cannot necessarily be used to calculate bond <br /> liability. The operator has provided their current revegetation costs in the <br /> recent submittal . However, no specifications, such as the areas revegetated, <br /> methods, slope inclinations, proximity to water, etc. are given. The <br /> submittal of this information may allow the Division to adjust for variations <br /> in cost due to site specific conditions (i.e. , No. 1 Mine may cost more to <br /> reclaim than the facilities area on a per acre basis) and possibly reduce the <br /> overall cost. <br /> V. Reclamation of the Loadout. <br /> The operator states that (total ) reclamation of the loadout is not necessary <br /> due to the PMLU of "industrial use". However, the Division has not approved a <br /> change in PMLU to this industrial use. In addition, the special use permit <br /> supplied in Enclosure No. 5 to justify this land use does not provide any <br /> relevant evidence. This permit applies to the current coal operation only and <br /> has no effect on future land uses. <br /> Notwithstanding this issue, Rules 3.03.1 (3)(e) and 4.15.10(2) require <br /> sufficient bonding to meet the general requirements of Rule 4.15. This <br /> implies that total demolition and revegetation of the site should be <br />