Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />Response to Concerns Contained in Letters <br />of September 28, 1990 and October 1, 1990 <br />from TREND in Colorado <br />This is a response to the concerns raised by TREND in Colorado regarding the <br />Division's Droposed decision on the Rimrock coal mining permit. Two separate <br />letters were received by the Division. The first letter was received by the <br />Division on September 28, 1990 and the second was faxed to the Division on <br />October 1, 1990. <br />The letter received on September 28, 1990 had 14 concerns of which 1, 2, 4, 9 <br />and 13 will be addressed in this response. The remaining concerns are issues <br />which are outside of the Division's regulatory jurisdiction. <br />September 28, 1990 Letter Issues <br />1. Issue no. 1 questions the discrepancy in the disturbed area (19.78 acres <br />in the state permit application and 13.81 in the county permit <br />application). The actual total pit disturbance area is 13.81 acres. <br />This acreage does not include the sediment ponds and dams which account <br />for 1.87 acres, and facilities and haul road which occupy 3.00 acres. <br />Topsoil storage and another road account for 1.10 acres which brings the <br />total affected area to 19.78 acres. <br />2. Issue no. 2 questions the mine's approximate distance from the City of <br />Trinidad in the MLRD and county permit application. In the state permit <br />application on page 2.03-12 it is stated that the mine is approximately <br />3 miles southeast of Trinidad. This is consistent throughout the MLRD <br />permit application. <br />4. Issue no. 4 raises the possibility of ground water contamination, The <br />Division has carefully reviewed the probable hydrologic consequences the <br />mine would have in the area. Regional baseline data was collected from <br />'1~ three wells and one mine discharge fora twelve month period. Samples <br />/(~\ were analyzed for temperature, pH, conductivity, and on April 14-15, 1988 <br />these samples were also analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS1 and <br />total dissolved solids (TDSI. Generally the water encountered was found <br />to be of poor quality with high TDS. The results of the analyses are <br />found in Appendix 4 of Volume II of the permit application. Based upon <br />the existing quality of the ground water prior to mining and the mine <br />plan which is designed to prevent ground water contact the Division has <br />determined that the impact of the mine on ground water will be negligible. <br />5. Issue no. 5 questions how various activities associated with the proposed <br />operation would impact wildlife habitat or movement. The Division of <br />Wildlife (DOW) has reviewed the proposed plan and indicated that the <br />overall impact of the proposed project to wildlife would be minimal (see <br />letter of October 17, 1990, from James L. Aragon of DOW to Michael Ossola <br />of the Las Animas County Planning Office). <br />- 1 - <br />