GENERAL54149 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Depanmem of Natural Resources 1717 Sherman SL, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (3031 866-J 567 FA%:1307)872-8106 March 18, 1994 Mr. Michael R. Peelish Senior Attorney Cyprus Amax Minerals Company 9100 East Mineral Circle Post Office Box 3299 Englewood, Colorado 80155 Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Pre-Law Highwalls Dear Mr. Peelish: I~~ DEPARTMENT O NATURA] RESOURCE Roy Romer Govemo~ Ken $alamr Eaec'nvve o~re<~~r Michael B Long; Division Dveao~ We have considered your comments on the above referenced rule change submitted by letter of March 11, 1994. You letter expresses uncertainty regarding why the term "face-up areas" is included in the rule. The correspondence further indicates that Cyprus Amax believes inclusion of the term "face-up areas" would broaden its obligation under the new rule, and that the new requirement would be more stringent than equivalent SMCRA requirements. The term "face-up area" is a term commonly used in underground mining in reference to the cut slope or face which results from the excavation necessary to allow for the development of underground entries. It is essentially synonymous with the term "highwall" as defined in Rule 1.04(58), with respect to underground mines. The term "face-up areas" was included in the proposed Rule 4.14.1(2)(f) because the rule specifically applies to underground mines, and because OSM had previously approved similar wording in approving comparable amendments for other states. We do not agree that inclusion of the term "face-up areas" would broaden the obligation of Cyprus Amax or other underground coal operators in Colorado under the new rule. Face-up areas or highwalls which meet the conditions of proposed Rule 4.14.1(2)(f) would not have to be completely eliminated, if specific criteria are met as a part of reclamation. Reclamation requirements for cut slopes associated with roads, diversions, and facilities other than entry to underground mining operations are not affected by the proposed rule. We also do not agree that the new rule would be more stringent than equivalent SMCRA requirements. This rule change was prompted in large part due to concerns expressed by underground mine operators in Colorado that the existing rules as they applied to elimination of pre-SMCRA highwalls were not practicable in many cases. There are no provisions in the federal rules which specifically allow for