REV96813

• Permit No: C1980001
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 12/21/1995
• Doc Name: EDNA STRIP MINE PN C-80-001 TR 34 MOFFAT AREA POSTMINING TOPOGRAPHY
• From: DMG
• To: PITTSBURG & MIDWAY COAL MINING CO
• Type & Sequence: TR34
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~.
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmenl of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80201
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
December 21, 1995
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
STATE OF COLORADO
~~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Mr. Brian D. Gontarek "°° R°"""
Environmental En ineer e~~.e,"n,
lames S lochhead
The Pittsburg & 'dway Coal Mining Company e.e~",,.e D„e~,"r
P.O. Box 6518 m;~naei a. ~nnX
Englewood, Colorado 80155-6518 0~~~„"" o~,ec~"~
RE: Edna Strip Mine (C-80-001)
Technical Revision 34
Moffat Area Postmining Topography
Dear Mr. Gontarek:
The Division has reviewed materials submitted in support of Technical Revision No. 34 to the
Edna Mine permit. As a result of that review, we have the following questions and comments.
1. As depicted on Exhibit 3.4-4, in some areas Unnamed Drainages #1, #2, and #3 run
parallel to the slope. There are a number of areas where the drainages make abrupt
changes from perpendicular to the slope to parallel. This drainage configuration does
not represent appproximate original contour. The premining topograpphy was characterized
by shallow, slightl meandering drainages running down the slope. It is also not apparent
how permanent drainages which are constructed across slope vnll be stable, as required
by Rule 4.05.3(1)(e). Please revise the plan so that the reclaimed area will be returned
to approximate original contour, with respect to the drainage density and characteristics,
as required by Rule 4.14.1(2)(a).
2. We are unable to locate designs for Unnamed Drainages #1, #2, and #3. When I
telephoned you (December 15, 1995) regarding these designs, you informed me that no
designs had been generated, since they are just low areas in the topography and not large
drainages. Since these features were reconstructed on the reclazmed land, and will
convey water, the Division has determined that they are indeed drainages, and as such
are subject to Rule 4.05.3 which addresses diversions and ephemeral channel
reconstruction. Accordingly, designs must be submitted to and approved by the Division.
Please provide designs for these drainages.
3. The currently approved permit application includes a demonstration that approximate
original contour can be achieved at final reclamation without using the material from the
initial boxcut; that the boxcut material was excess spoil. This demonstration was based
on mining to the end of the Moffat area reserve. Stnce mining ceased prior to reaching
the end of the reserve, in accordance with Rule 4.14.1(2)(d), this demonstration should
be revised. Please update the demonstration to indicate that at this point in the pit
progression, the initial box cut material is excess spoil since it is not required to achieve
approximate original contour at final reclamation.
4. P&M is proposing permanent retention of the North and South Collection ditches. In
order for the Division to approve retention, P&M must demonstrate compliance with
Rule 4.05.3. As we discussed on the telephone, the Division has one concern in
particular with the grade on the South Collection Ditch. Our observations since its