Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 275 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 C O L O R A D O <br />DIVISION O F <br />Phone: (303) 8663567 RECLAMATION <br />FAX: (303) 8328106 M l N I NG <br /> - &- <br /> SAFEi'Y <br />August 2, 2007 Galvemor lr <br /> Harris D. Sherman <br /> Executive Director <br />Mr. Phil Schmidt Ronald W. Cattany <br />Mountain Coal Com an LLC <br />13 y <br />P. O. Box 591 Division DIreCIOr <br />Natural Resource Trustee <br />Somerset, CO 81434 <br />Re: Permitting of Minnesota Reservoir Dam Material Damage Prevention Measures <br />Deaz Mr. Schmidt: <br />Thank you for Mountain Coal Company's letter of July 2, 2007 regarding the permitting of the Minnesota <br />Reservoir dam subsidence damage prevention measures. We appreciate the efforts Mountain Coal has <br />made in obtaining all necessary required approvals from the various agencies involved. We would like to <br />reply to your questions as they were submitted to us: <br />Questions regarding the source area within the proposed construction envelo tie <br />MCC: Our discussions in April lead us both to the conclusion that the activity of removing materials from <br />the head of the slide (now commonly called the borrow area) as a dam stability measure. This is confirmed <br />in the stability analysis prepared by Barr Engineering. It is coincidence and beneficial to do so as it <br />provides material (in addition to the unloading of the slide) for the buttress. <br />DRMS: Strengthening of the Minnesota Reservoir dam so as to prevent material subsidence damage and <br />diminution of its reasonably foreseeable use is governed by our subsidence control laws and regulations <br />(see attachement). Disturbances associated with complying with our rules are also governed by our rules. <br />MCC: That material removed from the head of the slide will not be reclaimed once the preventative <br />measures are constructed. That material stays as a compounding long-term stability measure for the dam. <br />As such, bonding for such activity does seem applicable, especially considering Minnesota Canal and <br />Reservoir Company is the proposing parry. <br />DRMS: Our discussions in April pertained to the reclamation of the borrow area within the "construction <br />envelope" situated within USFS boundaries, and not to secondary source sites. We decided at that time to <br />allow the reclamation of the borrow pit to meet the requirements of the USFS. We also decided that the rip <br />rap placed onto the dam would not need to be reclaimed or bonded under our rules. <br />Subsequent to the April meeting, we were informed that Mountain Coal was interested in identifying <br />"secondary" rip rap source sites on MCC lands, in the event the primary source site (the "borrow pit" <br />within the "construction envelope") failed to supply all the rip rap necessary for the project. [t was <br />Office of Office of <br />Mined Land Reclamation Denver Grand junction Durango Active and Inactive Mines <br />