Laserfiche WebLink
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii <br />STATE OF CCn.v 9~.~ <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman 51., Room 215 <br />Denver. CO 60203 <br />303 666 3567 <br />FA x: 303 6326106 <br />January 30, 1990 <br />Mr. David Beverlin <br />Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company <br />P.0. Box 176 <br />Oak Creek, CO 80467 <br />Re: Edna Strip Mine, File Go. C-80-001, PR-O1, Adequacy Review <br />Dear Mr. Beverlin: <br />of `°r-0 <br />W~ ~ c <br />/\\ ~O <br />~,~~~ <br />r8]6 ~ <br />Ray Fome~. <br />Goverrro~ <br />F retl R Bania <br />Division Dxeaor <br />The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (MLRD) has conducted a <br />preliminary adequacy review of proposed permit revision number O1 (PR-O1) for <br />the Edna Strip Mine as submitted by Pittsburg and Midway Coal 14inina Company <br />(P&M). <br />The following questions need to be answered in order to adequately comply with <br />the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, 34-33-101 et seq, <br />~'+~~~'P"~ C.R.S. 1973 as amended and its promulgated regulations. <br />I,"~O V,~S Proposed Exhibit 3.4-1 shows the post-mining contours as visualized by <br />C / P&M. Proposed Section 3.4 discusses achieving positive drainage on <br />reclaimed land. But Exhibit 3.4-1 shows no restoration of the <br />pre-existing drainage system. Based on the undisturbed topography along <br />the western edge of the disturbed area on Exhibit 3.4-1, several <br />drainages need to be restored to minimize the potential of excessive <br />concentration of runoff which could increase erosion. Rule 4.14.2(5). <br />2. Proposed Section 3.4.2-1 and Exhibits 3.3-3, 3.3-4, 3.4-3 and 3.4-4 <br />indicate the permanent placement of boxcut spoils on the southerly, <br />adjoining East Ridge Area and a three part depression running down the <br />slope at the north end of the Moffat Area's disturbance. P&M's proposal <br />does not comply with Approximate Original Contour (AOC) regulations <br />because of the depression at the north end. In addition P&M has not <br />demonstrated that the boxcut spoils on the south meet the criteria of <br />excess spoil. Rules 4.14.1(2)(d), 4.09.1, 4.14.2(a) and 1.04(13). <br />3.. Topsoil replacement details have been eliminated from Exhibit 4.4-1, <br />"Conceptionalized Reveaetation". The proposed topsoil handling plan does <br />not meet the requirements of Rule 2.05.4(2). This rule requires detailed <br />Nf~S timetables and plans for ". redistribution of topsoil, subsoil and <br />~~ other material to meet the requirements of (Rule) 4.06." P&M should <br />r resubmit this information, lti/~ ~~ I e ~~ / LI 3 _ ' <br />See rY- b `"I <br />