Laserfiche WebLink
.:•~ . <br />1.~ <br />_;, <br />...., <br /> ii iiiiiiiii <br />999 nii iiii <br />:Jnite~ ~taies tr~ epart_1~: ~~~ c:.: ;-.~~• . -dR~ ~~..::: rr: ~~n. <.~; . <br /> <br />I3UR4:AU O1~ L.\KU \iANAGI•a11:N I <br />GR:IND,JUNC'17O'V RI:SUUR(:1•..1R1(r1 <br />7GL IIURI/.U iV llKl\~I~: <br />GI:ANI) JUNI~.IIUN, t'.UI UR:11)O ri15U6 <br />CERTIFLED MAIL P 872 154 197 ~`a~ ~ 1 ,J `1? <br />RETURN RECF.ZP'!' REpUESTED <br />;•tr. Andrea Lli.lhelm <br />Rine Geologist <br />Salt Creek Mining Company <br />Loma, Colorado 81524-0070 <br />Dear Mr. Wilhelm: <br />4az <br />~, 6ao>, <br />EB 14 199? <br />)Vince°~ Lan <br />01 <br />'Phis office has reviewed the u.-ie an on re:~ource recovery and protection <br />plan (R2 P2) minor modification su muted under cover letter dated Decem~er 27, <br />1991, as well as the Northweet Reserves R2P2, submitted January 10, 1992. The <br />Northwest Reserves R2P2 contains an appropriate level of detail and accuracy <br />for a 3-year submittal and the plan is acceptable as received. .tegarding the <br />:iunger Canlun minor modification, the following requirements will need to be <br />acidreesed before approval for this modification can be granted. <br />7'he mine plan maps for the Carneo and Carbonera beds (I•'iq ures 2.1-4 and 2.1-6) <br />are not considered adequate. The northern portion of the Cameo plan shows a <br />layout, overlapping t+iih the McClane mine plan. The Ca>_bonera plan in the <br />northeast corner of .lease C-0125516 does not ~~cv~•r the minable area because <br />tha 6 foot ieopach is not based on the current isoa.ch map. It is recoremended <br />that tF.e se mine flan r.~.~~~e be redrawn at a 1" = lUUO' scale with section lines, <br />lea::e boundaries, mine permit boundary, and coal isopachs added. The=. <br />overlapping line patterns t_sed in the minx l,fout arm somewhat confusing and <br />should be modified to clearly show panol outlines and the sequence of <br />development. <br />The projected ,~.ining height has been changed fror.i 14 to 11 lose. This is <br />clearly reasonable given what has been learned abut rib stability ~,t McClane <br />Canyon to date, and is consistent vita the McC L,.ne Canyon ;rc i9ht. Mow evor, <br />:.he existing Munger Canyon mine plan on pas. 2-12 states that mining will <br />occur within whatever interval has the best coal quaLit y. This etatc.,.~nt i.e <br />not considered acceptable because it allows for th•~ rotential of high-gradrng <br />t7o seam and ruining t}+e lower part for fut ire recovery. The present <br />r^gulatory performance standards do not allow the latitude to select such a <br />recovery scheme, unless it is dictated by actue.l ccal quality requiremertt~ <br />and/or rtrine economics, neither of which are es~ah li.s hod yet for idu nger Canlun. <br />tam would suggest that you incorporate stateme,.ts similar to those used <br />regarding thick seam recovery and mining horizon within the 17cCl ar,e Ce ryun <br />R?P2 (Pages 3.3-5 and 4.1). These satisfy tl)e MER requirement by adopting tho <br />r„~st desirable possible recovery standard initia'.ly, yet alla;+ for the <br />srandard to be relaxed or modified +.f ~conontics dictate. <br />