Laserfiche WebLink
an Mathews 3 March 29. 2006 <br />areas affected to date, with correct map scale. There are no proposed areas to be disturbed <br />so the symbol in the legend was removed. <br />d. Changed text on last paragraph of 2-17 from 2.2-1 to 2.1-1 <br />e. Added 2004 and 2005 production totals to page 2-4 <br />f. Reserve Estimate on page 2-59 was recalculated based on a 50% recoverable factor and <br />7.5' average height. 7.5' was picked from the Upper Cameo Thickness Reserve Map. Text <br />was amended on page 2-59, second paragraph...11' was replaced with 7.5' and Lower was <br />replaced with Upper in the second sentence. On page 2-60, first sentence Upper was <br />replaced with Lower. <br />8) There are out-dated references in various sections of the application pertaining to support facilities. On page 1- <br />1, third paragraph, there is reference to proposed construction of a McClane to Munger Road and a minor <br />realignment of the access road at the Highway 139 intersection. There are additional references to the <br />connecting road, with regard to topsoil salvage quantities in the second paragraph on page 2-38, and with <br />regard to bac~lling and grading in the 1'~ paragraph of page 3-10 and the third paragraph of page 3-12. <br />Finally, there is a statement in the first paragraph o(page 2-2 indicating that no suface borings are planned <br />within the permit area, and there is a statement in the third paragraph of that page indicating that coal could be <br />trucked to Powderhom Coal Company's railloadout. Please amend the various lextsections as appropriate <br />to elim/nate out-dated references and to accurately reflect the current status of operetions. <br />CAM -Changed text on page 1-1, third paragraph, removed mention of proposed road from McClane <br />to Munger and removed proposed alignment adjustment of access road at Highway 139. Page 2-38 <br />removed references to connecting road in regard to topsoil salvage quantities. Page 3-10, 1a <br />paragraph, page 3-12, 3'" paragraph...removed references to bac~lling and grading of connecting <br />road. Page 2-2, third paragraph, removed sentence stating coal could be trucked to Powderhom Coal <br />Companys rail loadout. <br />9) Status of power lines constructed to supply power fo the mine portal and office areas is somewhat untaear. <br />Power lines within the permit area are indicated on Figure 2.2-2. The smaller stale Figure 1.1-3A appears to <br />indicate that power line segments exGusively serving the mine originate outside of the permR area. Powerlines <br />are not spe~cally discussed or described in the narrative sections of the permit that address support fatalities. <br />Specific reclamation details are not discussed, with the exception that Section 3.7 o/the application on page 3- <br />21 states that at the conclusion of the project, `...all mine support /atalities will be removed from the site:, and <br />"...all signs of the operation including telephone po/es...etc. will be Leaned up and either removed or sealed <br />within the mine". Power line demolitioNremoval costs do not appear to be included within Table 3.7-1 <br />`Reclamation cost Calculations" Also, the permit does not appear to inGUde documentation of compliance with <br />Rule 4.18(4), showing that `electric powerlines and other transmission facilities used fororincidental to surface <br />mining activities on the permit area are designed and constructed to minimize elecVocution hazards to raptors°. <br />We have the following requests, a) Please amend the permit boundary as necessary to ensure that all <br />power lines and other utility fac/lities that are required for or used !ncldental to mining activities are <br />Included within the approved permk boundary, with reference to the documents conveying right of <br />entry, b) Please ensure that all such facilities are described in sufficient detail in the appropriate mine <br />plan and reclamation plan sections o/!he permh, and accurately delineated on appropriate penn/t area <br />maps, c) Please provide documentation of compliance with Rule 4.18(4). <br />CAM <br />a. Permit boundary modification on BLM surface (SECTION 21: SW/4SW/4) is not necessary <br />as CAM is not responsible for right of entry of Grand Valley Power's mainline power line. It <br />was agreed upon at a meeting with Steve Don, manager of Engineering at Grand Valley <br />Power that CAM'S distribution line begins within the permit boundary. See Figure 2.2-2. <br />b. Page 2-28, added sentence to first paragraph addressing overhead power line. Page 3-21, <br />Section 3.7.1, 4s' line, added power line poles to verbiage. Page 3-1, added paragraph at the <br />end about reclamation of distribution line. See attached letter from Steve Don, manager of <br />Engineering with Grand Valley Power. <br />c. Please see attached letter from Steve Don to be incorporated as new Table 3.7-3. <br />10) There is one groundwater monitoring well (GW-i), which is included in Table 3.7-1. other monitoring wells <br />included in the approved monitoring program are accountedlorin the Munger Canyon Mine permit bond. GW- <br />1, an upstream alluvial well on East Salt Creek is located over a mile north of the current permit boundary. <br />