REV08550 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,,,! {'•; Mountain Coal Company , wa Esc tun. ' ` Poe one Bao~ es+ " T+~ sro~'sseoa~ta~ '~I Fst a70 aQO<aea6 January 19, 1996 Mr. David Berry DMSION OF MIIVERALS AND GEOLOGY 05ioo of Mtned Lend Reclamation 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 Re: Watt Elk Irene, Permit No. C-80-007, Apache Rocks Permit Revision No. 06,1riRh Adequacy Review Response Dear Dave: The following era Mountain Coal Company's (MCC) responaee to the Division's remaining adequacy review comments per your letter of January 1 S, 1996. Previous responses that were acceptable, are deleted tom this response. Oeolo¢v (2.04.6) ,/ 1.E. The Division's original comment stated that the sentence should be added verbatun back into the permit text, Lf the statement were still applicable. The restated sentence on psF,e 2.04-15, references the same maps and states that the holes were abandoned, reclaimed, or coai~~leted in accordance with the applicableregulations -the intended purpose of the original sentence. Map 34 depicts the wells and other resources ~y monitored, but a few other wells werro completed end capped for future monitoring that are included on Map 8. The revised statement ie more accurate. / 11. No response required, H,,,,ydrologv (2.04.7) 2 & 3. All data obtained to date $om the new monitoring stations have been presented in Exhibit 19A, submitted last month. At least one year of monitoring data (per MCC's apprwei} schedule) will be obtained prior to Iongwall mining these new areas. Please bo aware that most q~E'the resources in the Apache Roclu permit revision area have been monitored for over ton years or baseline data were obtained in past years. This was one of the primary issue considered when the PR boundary wee originally proposed. MCC is concerned with obtaining one year of baseline data in particular fur the ttew, proposes south Sylvester Gulch flume monitoring site. The proposed location of the flume is within the