Laserfiche WebLink
MOUON~AIN COAL <br />~C PANY~~e. ^~<,~ <br />~ <. <br />A Subsidiary of Arch Western Resources, LLC ('`n ~ .~'' <br />~~ <br />NJ <br />June 13, 2005 <br />Mr. James Burnell <br />Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Office of Mined Land Reclamation <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />RECE9~JFQ <br />JUN 13 2005 <br />Dlviswn of Minerals antl GosbOY <br />West Elk Mine <br />P O Box 591 <br />5174 Highway 133 <br />Somerset, CO 81434 <br />(970) 929-5015 <br />Fax (970) 929-5595 <br />Re: Mountain Coal Company L.L.C (MCC), Rest Elk Mine, Permit No. C-80-007, 2nd Adequacy Response <br />Letter, June 2005, Permit Revision No. 10. <br />Dear Mr. Burnell: <br />MCC has reviewed the comments received in the Division's second adequacy letter dated 24 February 2005, for <br />Permit Revision No. 10. As a result of the Divisions letter, MCC is addressing the Division's comments with <br />the following responses. The Division's comments are numbered, while MCC's responses are bolded and <br />italicized. <br />The following responses are arranged by number, corresponding to the original comment letter. For those <br />- numbers for which a new comment has been added, the original CDMG comment and the original MCC <br />response is included for clazity. <br />Al. New Comment: The Division requests that all the potential impacts be summarized in a format that can be <br />(~JI~IIC/ readily used by both MCC and CDMG. A summary format, including tables, will be much easier to evaluate <br />for adequacy and as a reference in the future as mining proceeds into the South-of-Divide area. <br />There are five divisions to this summary, as follows. <br />(1) Potentially impacted features. <br />These include streams, wetlands, groundwater, renewable resources, alluvial valley floors and <br />man-made structures, including but not limited to the Deep Creek diversion, the Minnesota <br />reservoir and dam, undermined roads. <br />(2) Predicted potential impact to each ofthose items in #1. <br />(3) Specific monitoring to be accomplished to evaluate impact on each item. <br />(4) Specific mitigation proposed for impact on each item. <br />(5) The proposed threshold of impact -what within the monitoring will trigger mitigation action. <br />!~ Please provide this along with your responses to the second round of adequacy questions. <br />MCCResponse: MCC has included Table A-1 at pages 2.05-148A <br />