APPCOR11661

• Permit No: C1996084
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 7/15/1997
• Doc Name: REVIEW OF JULY 1 1997 ADEQUACY REVIEW RESPONSE LORENCITO CANYON MINE PERMIT APPLICATION LORENCITO CO
• From: DMG
• To: KENT GORHAM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

100. The applicant has adequately addressed [his concern.
107. The applicant has adequately addressed this concern.
110. In accordance with the applicant's request, the Division will stipulate receipt of the Colorado
Air Pollution Control Division emission permit prior to operations beginning to which the
emission permit applies.
114. The applicant at this time has not received joint approval from the Division, (Coal Program),
the Division's Mine Safety and Training Program, and MSHA, of a plan to conduct surface
coal mining activities within 500 feet of underground mine workings. The Division must
therefore stipulate that no surface coal mining activities may be conducted closer than 500
feet, measured horizontally, of either an active or underground [nine until the applicant
receives joint approval from the Division's Coal Program, the Division's Mine Safety and
Training Program and MSHA of a plan describing the nature, timing and sequence of those
operations that will be conducted within the 500-foot buffer.
117. The Division initially found, with one exception, the proposed operations to be in
compliance with Rule 2.06, as the applicant indicated mountaintop removal methods were
planned for the surface mining (second sentence, third paragraph, page 2.06-1, 12/23/96).
The exception was that the permit application binders did not clearly identify the proposed
operation to be mountainrop removal. The applicant's April 25, 1997 response indicated
that the applicant had subsequently determined the proposed operations did not meet the
definition of mountaintop removal. The Division, in its May 27, 1997, response disagreed,
and asked the applicant to provide its justification for its position.
The applicant, in its July 1. 1997 response, stated that the operations do not meet the
definition of mountaintop removal because the applicant "will reclaim the surface mine to
approximate original contour rather than to a `level plateau or gently rolling contour"', as
described in Rule 2.06.3(2). The applicant further stated that the operation didn't meet the
mountaintop removal definition because the applicant "is not proposing a land use change
for the area".
With regard to the applicant's point about reclaiming to approximate original contour
(AOC), the Division does not find [his to be a valid argument. Mountaintop removal mining
operations are not exempted by Rule 4.14(2)(a) from reclaiming to approximate original
contour. Mountaintop removal mining may be exempted from reclaiming to AOC by
applying for a variance under Rule 4.26.2(1).
With regard to the applicant's point about changes in land use, the Division does not find
this to be a valid argument. Rules 4.26.2(1)(c) and (d) apply to applicants who seek to
obtain a variance from the requirement to return the mining disturbance to AOC.
If the Division were to determine that the Lorencito surface mine operations were not
mountaintop removal mining, the Division would [hen have to find the Lorencito mining