Laserfiche WebLink
slt ~~~~' ~ 111111111111!lIIII~ °°.~~~-x'1001 <br />~`' ~' United States Department of the Interior 3400 <br />1~ ~ T`~ s C-27;03 <br />:~~~ BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (161 NS <br />^•.+: Uncompahgre Basin Resource Area <br />'`'" "° P. 0. Box 1269 • • ~ ~ <br />Montrose, Colorado 81401 ~ ' <br />`, , , . <br />Memorandum 1JUN 11 .J80 <br />To: Earl J. Cox ~: ,.:-., ~~ip. <br />Acting Area Mining Supervisor, G~i~CE uF f,;,E;, (,j ,;;,;;,; -.gip <br />CRMA, USGS, <br />Denver, Colorado <br />From: District Manager, Montrose <br />Subject: Comments on exploration plan submitted by U.S. Geological <br />Survey for Western Slope Carbon, Inc. Federal Coal Lease <br />C-21103 (enclosed) <br />On May 21, 1980, members of my staff conducted an on-site field examination <br />on an exploration plan submitted by Western Slope Carbon on March 18, 1980, <br />for their Federal Coal Lease C-27103. Because of their examination findings <br />I recommend that this plan not be approved as submitted for the following <br />reasons: <br />• (1) Drill site D.H. 9 would have to be located immediately adjacent <br />to the margin of State Highway 133. Although the safety of this <br />problem is addressed in the exploration plan (page 2), this drill <br />site would still be difficult to drill without some sort of site <br />preparation. Drill site preparation would require disturbance of <br />the highway, and the integrity of the highway should take precedence <br />over the drill site. <br />(2) Both drill sites D.H. 9 and D.H. 10, and the proposed access road <br />to D.H. 10, are located in an active slide area. The highway <br />department is at present attempting to stabilize a slide which <br />encompasses drill site D.H. 10. This slide has destroyed a 200 <br />foot section of State Highway 133. Therefore, if the access road <br />to the drill site is constructed there is the possibility of further <br />activating the sliding process. <br />The slide complicating the drilling of D.H. 10 could also endanger the <br />structural integrity of the ventilation shaft proposed for the same <br />location. Therefore, it is suggested that the location of a ventilation <br />shaft at drill site D.H. TO be reconsidered. <br />It should also be noted that dri]1 site D.H. 10 contains another compli- <br />cation, perhaps not fatal to the proposed exploration plan and its <br />objectives, but none the less one that deserves consideration; that is, <br />• <br />