REV12311

• Permit No: C1980001
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 9/11/1995
• Doc Name: EDNA MINE C-80-001 MR 34
• From: DMG
• To: PITTSBURG & MIDWAY COAL MINING CO
• Type & Sequence: MR34
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

...- ~

STATE -
~II ~I~II~II~~~~~~I~
OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmem of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Si.. Room 215

Denver, Colorado 80203 ~~
~
Phone: [phone] ~
~
FAX: [phone]
DEPARTMEN'T' OF
NATURAL
September 11, 1995 RESOURCES
Roy Romer

David L. Beverlin Governor
Edna Mine lames S Lochhead

The Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Company E>tecmrve Director

P
B
O
176 Michael B. Long
.
OX
. Division Director
Oak Creek, Colorado 80467
RE: Edna Mine (C-80-001)
Minor Revision No. 34
Dear Mr. Beverlin:
The Division has received your application for the above mentioned minor revision. The
application was deemed complete on September 8, 1995, and a subsequent adequacy review
conducted. As a result of that review, we have the following questions and comments.
1. If P&M identifies erosional features of significance which require repair, how will fencing
cattle into areas of undetermined size ensure timely repair and mimmization of erosion?
2. What impact will cattle have on two and three yeaz old stands of revegetation if they are
used as "land imprinters" during interseeding operations?
3. The cover letter accompanying the revision application mentioned that the technique of
using cattle to repair erosional features has been used successfully at other sites. The
Division is not aware of successful use of cattle to repair dillies by incorporating mulch
and seed into erosional features. Can P&M provide any literature or other information
documenting the effectiveness of this proposal?
4. Revised page 4.3-27 indicates that the proposed use of cattle to control erosion on
reclaimed areas should not be considered as a grazing plan. The coal regulations do not
require that a grazing plan be included in mine pernuts. However, unless areas where
this practice is proposed are identified in advance, it might be beneficial to describe in
the permit application package the general numbers, duration, and intensity of grazing
to be conducted.
3. On the vegetation monitoring field sheets submitted with the revision, there are arrows
and lines following some of the species codes. Do these arrows and lines indicate the
species in the block preceding the arrows continues through the blocks crossed by the
arrows?
4. Please explain what the numbers on the shrub transect field sheets mean.
How and why was a portion of Block 1 identified as an area to be interseeded?