REV07084 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

jurisdiction of the Colorado State Engineer's office. We believe this procedure is consistent with the provisions of CDMG Rule 4.05.14. Colowyo does not believe the Divisions's rules prohibit our intended course of action. The Division has failed to address whether our proposed management scenario would have any adverse effect on the environment, health or safety. Unless such a finding is made we don't believe the rules are intended to extend perpetual CDMG jurisdiction over subsequent proper management and uses after all coal exploration activities have ceased. Should any issues remain, Colowyo, respectfully, requests an opportunity to discuss the issue further with the Division at your earliest convenience. In the Division's November 20, 2000 Midterm Review for Permit C-81-019, Items 14, and 15 also provide a duplicate request for additional information relative to wells located within 1 mile of the Permit boundary. Colowyo proposes to address this specific TR-50 request through the midterm review process rather than the TR-50 process. Item #2 and #3 - We believe the most appropriate location for this TR-50 information would be in the Exhibit 6 -Geologic Information. We have attached a Table of Contents page for Exhibit 6 -Geological Information. We have included TR-50 as Item # 5 in this Exhibit. Both the Table 1 and the Permit Area 1989-1997 Drill Hole Information Map should be placed into this exhibit. Item # 4 - Colovryo checked with a number of people having historic knowledge about the drilling activities in the early 1970's, the time during which these holes in question were drilled. The consensus appears to be that the drilling activities occurred before any State regulatory authority was in place to regulate such activities. As such, we believe that such activities were "pre-law" and not conducted under any State mining and reclamation agency approvals. Further, we believe there were no bonds submitted payable to Colorado for the reclamation of the sites. A review of Map 10 indicate that all of the sites with the exception of 5/A6 and 26 have been disturbed by mining. 5/A6 will eventually be disturbed by mining in the West Pit. Colowyo does not intend to use these pre-law wells. Item #5 -The holes IP#1, IP#2 and IP#3 permitted under MR-44 were never drilled (per Juan Garcia.) Table 1 has been corrected to include the information. In addition, the 89 - 97 Map has also been updated to show these proposed drill hole locations. Item #6 -Table 1 and the 89-97 Map have been updated with the information regarding the twelve MR-44 drill holes in question. As the Division is aware, the holes were drilled within the pit disturbance and thus, not bonded. Item #7 - As requested, drill hole 89-10-6 information has been included in Table 1. Item #8 -The Division suspected that hole UL-95-40 was listed incorrectly. We believe this item is correct and there should be bond-in-place. However, the hole noted in the line above, UL-95- 32 has not been mined through, is still in place, and it should have abond-in-place of $2,737.00 rather than a bond credit. Table 1 has been modified to correct the error. Item #9 -Pages 2.05-58, 4.07-1, 4.21-2 and 4.21-3 are included herein and modified to include the suggested language. Item #10 - UL-95-40A and UL95-45A are the correct Colowyo designations for the monitor wells. The Monitor Well map has been changed to reflect the correct designation. The discrepancies occurred as a result of the failure of the Licensed Water Well Contractor to file the correct Well