Laserfiche WebLink
l <br />STATE, OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION Of .V1IN ERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Dup,vimenl of Natural Resources <br />1 } I } Sherman 51., Room ? I > <br />D~•nvw. Q)Ipraf}O 80203 <br />Phunc. 13031 tlbh-}Sh% <br />F~% U01)H3'_~H106 <br />Date: August 11, 1995 <br />To: Christine Johnston <br />From: Kent Gorha ~~ ~ <br />CC: David Berry <br />RE: PR-06, Apache Rocks, West Elk Mine, ~`C-80-007 <br />Ir <br />~~~~~~~ <br />DEPART:btEi iT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Rnv Romer <br />t; m. r~nr <br />W mee 5 Luchhearl <br />E recwwe Di~eaor <br />~~¢hael tl. Long <br />D wniu~ Dveaar <br />As per your request, I have reviewed the information submitted for <br />the Apache Rocks Permit Revision #6, (PR-06) application, for the <br />West Elk mine operated by Mountain Coal Company. In addition to the <br />packet you provided me, I found additional materials in your office <br />for PR-06 and also reviewed portions of the 1994 Annual Hydrology <br />Report as well as some of the currently approved portions of the <br />permit. <br />After initial review of the packet, I was somewhat confused as to <br />the mine plan layout with regard to the proposed permit boundary <br />change for Apache Rocks. I spoke to Kathy Welt and she informed me <br />that, indeed, they were asking .only for approval based on the area <br />shown on Map lA, and that at some time later they would submit <br />;Ire another permit revision for areas to the.east and south. Part of <br />v the confusion is created by the fact that to mine in the eastern <br />~_area_(-sec 'ons 15 and 22), it assumes the longwall starting in <br />sections 14 and 2 which are outside the proposed permit area. <br />However, developm tal mining will not need to leave the proposed <br />permit area until 1998, so it appears that there will be adequate <br />time for them to get another PR together. It should be made clear <br />to them that although we may approve the Apache Rocks permit area, <br />that fact would not guarantee approval of the area in section 14 <br />and 22. I would recommend you speak to David and see how he thinks <br />it should be handled. <br />Given the above dilemma, I forged ahead with my review. My <br />comments are organized by category and by sections within the <br />proposed permit area. <br />Rule 2.04.6 Geolo4Y <br />Cross-section A-A' does not indicate the presence or absence <br />of groundwater encountered. <br />