REV16533

• 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

• ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
STATE OF COLUI~UU
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Deparlmenl of N.llurul Resources
I }U Sherman SI ,Room Z1 S
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAr (}03183'-81176
August 13, 1997
Ms. Christine Johnston
Mountain Coal Company
P.O. Box 591
Somerset, CO 81434
~~~
DEPARTMEfYT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Goeernor
tames 5. lochhead
E~ecmive DireClor
M¢hael B Long
Division Director
Re: Adequacy Review; Minor Revision No. 219; West Elk Mine; Permit Pio. 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 ertor. 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 are 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 azea can be
returned to approximate original contour with the addition of the excess spoil.
2. The Division has verified MCC's estimate of 151,000 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-11B. It would appear that Map 3E is cortect, and that the ertor is in the SEDCAD
run. Please review the map and model and clarify this apparent discrepancy.
The outcome of this issue affects the designs for CSLY-12, DSLY-13, CSLY-l3, and
CSLY-7, which may need to be revised.