REV02912

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 8/15/1997
• Doc Name: ADEQUACY REVIEW MINOR REVISION NO 219 WEST ELK MINE PN C-80-007
• From: DMG
• To: MOUNTAIN COAL CO
• Type & Sequence: MR219
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

,;
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depdrlmpnl of Nuiurdi Resources
111 3 Sherman SL. Room ? I S
Dcrn~er. Colorado 8U'_03
Phone: l}U71 H64.7567
FAX: I SU71 87'~NI Ufi
August 13, 1997
Ms. Christine Johnston
Mountain Coal Company
P.O. Box 591
Somerset, CO 81434
~~~~~
DEPARTtv1ENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Gae•nor
lames S. Lochhead
E.ecwrve Director
Michael B. Long
D~~isian DireOOr
Re: Adequacy Review; blinor Revision No. 219; West Elk Mine; Permit No. C-80-007
The Division has the following remaining comments concerning the adequacy of MCC's
responses, regarding Minor Revision No. 219.
DMG's reference to Section 4.12.1 was a typographical error. The reference should have
been Section 4.14.1. MCC notes that the return of all spoil material is not necessary to
meet the requirements of approximate original contour. DMG agrees with the
demonstration provided, but will require that the demonstration be incorporated into the
permit application package. In addition to the demonstration that there aze 11,000 CY of
excess material, MCC needs to address the requirements of Sections 4.05, 4.06, 4.09, and
4.15. Specifically, MCC needs to specify the final location of the excess 11,000 CY of
spoil material, and demonstrate that the material will be stable; the fill will minimize
disturbance to the prevailing hydrologic balance; topsoil in the proposed location will be
salvaged, stored and replaced as required; and disturbed azeas will be revegetated
appropriately. In addition, MCC needs to demonstrate that the designated fill area can be
returned to approximate original contour with the addition of the excess spoil.
2. The Division has verified MCC's estimate of l ~ I,000 CY to be excavated.
3/4. MCC addressed the Division's previous concerns with the routing of runoff at the shaft
site. The information provided by MCC, however, presented a new inconsistency. The
diagram on Map 3E shows that drainage from the bench will flow to DSLY-18 and then
through CSLY-12. The accompanying SEDCAD runs show the bench draining to
CSLY-11 B. It would appear that Map 3E is correct, and that the error is in the SEDCAD
run. Please review the map and model and clarify this apparent discrepancy.
iii iiiiiiiiniii iii
STATE OF COLvi~nvv
The outcome of this issue affects the designs for CSLY-12, DSLY-13, CSLY-i3, and
CSLY-7, which may need to be revised.