Laserfiche WebLink
~- <br />On December 16, 2005, the Division of Minerals and Geology (Division) sent hfountain Coal Company (MCC) <br />the second adequacy review letter associated with MCC's application for Permit Revision PR-10 to the West <br />Elk Mine permit. We herein provide the following additional responses to the Division's adequacy comments. <br />The first group of comments below have been prefixed with a "P" because they refer to specific pages from the <br />June 2005 PR-10 adequacy response submittal. MCC has corrected the June 2005 pages containing these issues <br />and has reorganized the corrected information. The Division's adequacy questions and comments appear in <br />standazd text, and MCC's responses aze shown bolded and italicized. <br />P 1. On page 2.04-60, the text states that "E-seam mining will occur approximately 1200 feet below I(~ G <br />the alluvial materials associated with the Dry Fork." This is incorrect. E-seam mining will occur 375- <br />1200 feet below the alluvial materials associated with the Dry Fork. Please correct the text as necessary. <br />MCCs Response: These changes were made where necessary on 1.04-71. <br />P2. On page 2.04-61, the text refers to the overburden as "typically greater than 1000 feet in the E- <br />Seam SOD". This is incorrect. Please correct the text as necessary. <br />MCCs Response: These changes were made where necessary on 2.04-71. <br />P3. On page 2.04-68, the text refers to the Dry Fork as "ephemeral". However, 2003 AHR text <br />labels the Dry Fork as "intermittent", and 2004 hydrology data indicates the Dry Fork as "perenniaP'. <br />Please conect the text as necessary. <br />MCC Response: Dry Fork oje4linnesota Creek is an ephemeral stream, flowing only in response to <br />snowmelt runofjand rainfall events. Due to the importation ojwater via the transbasin Deep Creek <br />Ditch, the Dry Fork stream channel carries water later into the summer than would naturally occur. <br />The presence oja couple ojsprings downstream of Minnesota Reservoir might be able to sustain floe <br />in part ojthe lower Dry Fork reach. MCC is reviewing the raw data collected during water year 100 <br />to determine ijthe winter "Bows" reported in the AHR might have been due to ice or equipment <br />malfunction. <br />P4. This is a comment rather than an adequacy question. Page 2.04-70 has a good description of <br />Minnesota Resen~oir that may be valuable to include in the subsidence section of the permit text. <br />,11CC Response: This information is now found on 2.04-81, and addressed more in detail in Erhibiu <br />72 and 74. <br />P4a. Tables 4 and 5 found in the 2004 Annual Hydrology Report are exactly the kind of tables need <br />in the permit text. Please consider incorporating this important information into the permit. <br />Additionally, after review of the tables, the following errors were noted: <br />10 <br />P O Sox 591 ~ 5174 Highwroy 133 ~ Somerset, CO B 1434 <br />19T0) 929.5015 <br />