2010-12-23_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089 ‎(3)‎

• Permit No: C2010089
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 12/23/2010
• Doc Name: Review/Comments Letter Memo
• From: Mike Boulay
• To: Marcia Talvitie
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203 rC O L O RA D O
Phone: [phone] t v i s i o N p F
ECLAMATION
FAX: [phone] MINING
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM SAFETY
SUBJECT: Western Fuels - Colorado, New Horizon North Mine (Permit No. C- 2010 -089),
New Permit Application
I have reviewed Sections 2.04.5 and 2.04.6 of Western Fuels- Colorado's (WFC's) New Horizon
North Mine permit application and have the following comments.
2.04.5 General Description of Hydrology and Geology
In the second paragraph on page 4 of Section 2.04.5 there is an incomplete sentence or an
extra space that needs to be corrected.
2. Under the discussion of Significance of Groundwater on pages 6 and 7 the information
presented is from 1970 and focuses on historic use. This seems somewhat outdated and
should be clarified with reference to present use. In Section 2.04.7 pages I 1 -13 there is a
discussion on present and potential use of groundwater, which seems more appropriate.
Please add a brief discussion to the significance of groundwater section that references the
present and potential use of groundwater and whether the historic consumptive use
presented in Table 2.04.5 -2 is reflective of current conditions.
2.04.6 Geology Description
3. On Figure 2.04.6 -1 General Columnar Section, there is an incorrect reference to the Burro
Canyon Shale. The Burro Canyon is a Formation of Cretaceous age as opposed to a
Member of the Jurassic age Morrison Formation and is stratigraphicaIly above the Brushy
Basin Member of the Morrison Formation. Please correct Figure 2.04.6 -1.
4. Rule 2.04.6(2) requires analyses of the coal seam, including, but not limited to, an analysis
of the sulfur, pyrite, and marcasite content. In the permit text there are inferences made as to
the pyrite and marcasite content visible in core samples but no analyses were provided.
Further our Division Guidelines for the Collection of Baseline Water Quality and
Overburden Geochemistry Data (19 82) recommends that sulfur analyses be broken out into
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver + Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines
Bill Ritter, Jr.
Governor
TO: Marcia Talvitie
Mike King
Executive Director
FROM: Mike Boulay t
Loretta E. Pineda
Director
DATE: December 23, 2010
SUBJECT: Western Fuels - Colorado, New Horizon North Mine (Permit No. C- 2010 -089),
New Permit Application
I have reviewed Sections 2.04.5 and 2.04.6 of Western Fuels- Colorado's (WFC's) New Horizon
North Mine permit application and have the following comments.
2.04.5 General Description of Hydrology and Geology
In the second paragraph on page 4 of Section 2.04.5 there is an incomplete sentence or an
extra space that needs to be corrected.
2. Under the discussion of Significance of Groundwater on pages 6 and 7 the information
presented is from 1970 and focuses on historic use. This seems somewhat outdated and
should be clarified with reference to present use. In Section 2.04.7 pages I 1 -13 there is a
discussion on present and potential use of groundwater, which seems more appropriate.
Please add a brief discussion to the significance of groundwater section that references the
present and potential use of groundwater and whether the historic consumptive use
presented in Table 2.04.5 -2 is reflective of current conditions.
2.04.6 Geology Description
3. On Figure 2.04.6 -1 General Columnar Section, there is an incorrect reference to the Burro
Canyon Shale. The Burro Canyon is a Formation of Cretaceous age as opposed to a
Member of the Jurassic age Morrison Formation and is stratigraphicaIly above the Brushy
Basin Member of the Morrison Formation. Please correct Figure 2.04.6 -1.
4. Rule 2.04.6(2) requires analyses of the coal seam, including, but not limited to, an analysis
of the sulfur, pyrite, and marcasite content. In the permit text there are inferences made as to
the pyrite and marcasite content visible in core samples but no analyses were provided.
Further our Division Guidelines for the Collection of Baseline Water Quality and
Overburden Geochemistry Data (19 82) recommends that sulfur analyses be broken out into
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver + Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines