APPCOR10593 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- • - ~~ ~~ Dan Mathews -2- NovcnJ~cr 73, ]gA] they are a combined deposit of mud .flow/colluvi al /alluvial materials derived from Grand Mesa. The amended Tomahawk mine application, a neighboring operation, contains a discussion of the probable morphology of similar. deposits. "D" and "E" Seam Ffi ne Plan Details Zn my earlier memos, Z reguc-sted the preparation of mine plan maps for the proposed "D" seam workings. None has been included within the amended application materials. On pa ye 259, the applicant states; "Safety zones for 'D' coal seam will be forwarded when mining benins in that seam." The only indication of a mine plan for the "D" seam is contained as a general projection of estimated scheduling by area on Plap 2.05,3(1)-3. hlithout a detailed plan for the proposed "D" seam (Red Canyon No. 2 mine), Z do not believe that approval of the proposed "D" seam mine workings will be possible. Tit hest, a partial approval of the "E" seam (Red Canyon No. 1 mine) workings might be possible. The applicant should amend the application to include a thozough description of the proposed "D" seam workings and an accompanying map. That map should also indicate the proposed safety zones, in which extraction is to be limited to SO o, proposed for mining within the "D" seam. In addition, the.mine plan map for the proposed working within the "E" coal seam (Red Canyon No. I mine) should he amended to .specifically show the proposed workings within the !d 2/2 of the sE 1/9 of Section 2. This would greatly assist in clarifying the text descriptions on pages 78-80 of the original application. I apoloy.ize for overlooking this specific problem during my earlier review of the original permit application. This amendment would be particularly helpful in clarifying the mine plan changes referred to on page 81 of the amended application, which resulted from the unstable roof conditions encountered while mining west in the No. 1 west submains of the existing Red Canyon No. 1 mine. (See above description.) Discrepencies Between the Subsidence Text and Suhsiclence Control hfap The amended application text refers to items purportedly indicated on the "Subsidence Control P1ap", Map No. 2.05.6 (6)(f)(ii)(C)-1. On page 153, the applicant states that the "areas of influence" beneath each structure have been indicated on that map. They have not. The map should be properly redrafted to include their indication. Furthermore, on pa ye 1597' of the amended application, the application indicates that the location of subsidence monuments is indicated on that map. They, also, have been overlooked. This map should be properly amended so that I can complete my review of the proposed monitoring plan. /mt cc: Fred Banta