Laserfiche WebLink
compliance with the rules has occurred. It is more likely that because these past sampling site <br />accesses were for a one time, specific use and were not, nor intended to remain as part of the <br />designed and permitted operations or facility, that the accesses were not considered to be part of the <br />permanent facility design, rather a part of the sampling site. After talking to Dave Berry in regard to <br />MR 352 and with MCC management, my understanding of the past conversations that MCC has had <br />with the Division concerning the appropriate level of revision application, had to do with public notice <br />and disclosure. As I'd said in my previous response, MCC is aware that copies of MCC's revision <br />applications and approval documents are provided to the Town of Paonia and WSERC and MCC <br />would be more than willing to meet with them (or any other potentially "affected" party) to review this <br />MR application and address their concerns. <br />Please let me know if you have further questions or require additional information <br />xathy `welt, <br />Environmental Engineer III <br />Mountain Coal Company, LLC <br />West Elk Mine <br />P.O. Box 591 <br />Somerset, CO 81434 <br />Phone (970) 929-2238 <br />Cell (970) 433-1022 <br />Fax (970) 929-5050 <br />From: Hernandez, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Hernandez@state.co.us] <br />Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:13 PM <br />To: Welt, Kathy; Kaldenbach, Tom <br />Cc: Nolte, Doug; Sweetwood, Ryan; Nyikos, Chris <br />Subject: RE: MR 354 - Geotech Boreholes <br />Hi Kathy - <br />Got your message. Allow me to clarify my directions to Tom regarding the use of a Minor Revision (Rule 1.04( 73)) or a <br />Technical Revision (Rule 1.04(136)) for this project, and to provide further comment. <br />• With the exception of the borehole proposed for drilling into the abandoned Oliver Mine workings, the <br />proposed geotechnical data gathering boreholes may by themselves be processed via an MR (see my comment <br />below regarding the borehole proposed to be drilled into the Oliver Mine, which is different than what I <br />conveyed to Tom earlier). <br />• The May 5 2009 cover letter submitted with the MR-354 application states, "...access to the proposed East RPE <br />area boreholes will be by existing roads and trails to the maximum extent possible". If this were all that were <br />proposed for access, this revision could be still be processed as an MR, so long as these existing roads and trails <br />were not significantly upgraded for the project. <br />• 1 appreciate being informed that the surface and the coal where this proposed activity will occur is privately- <br />owned. It was brought to my attention that the surface lands where this activity is proposed are not federally- <br />managed; we were not, however, aware that the coal was private as well. As such, I do not anticipate the need <br />to coordinate our review of this application with the US BLM or the US Forest Service. <br />• The May 5 2009 cover letter, however, additionally states that "approximately 1,330 feet of new, temporary <br />access road may need to be constructed if an all-terrain boring rig is not available for this project". It is this <br />sentence that is one of the two issues raising the application to a Technical Revision (the other being the Oliver <br />Mine borehole, discussed below).