My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV99451
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV99451
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:23:20 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:26:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
9/5/2006
Doc Name
Response Letter & Attachment from State Engineers
From
DRMS
To
Seneca Coal Company
Type & Sequence
TR37
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />~~~~Q RFCFI~/gyp <br />~G AUG 312006 <br />Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety <br />Response to Reclamation Permit Application Consideration <br />DATE: August 31, 2006 <br />TO: Michael P. Boulay, Environmental Protection Specialist <br />CC: Division 6 Office; Andrea Schaffner, District 57 Water Commissioner <br />FROM: Craig M. Lis, P.E. <br />RE: Operator: Seneca Coal Company, Seneca II Mine, Technical Revision 37 <br />Routt County <br />Pond 002 (aka Wadge Pit Reservoir) - 1810 feet from the NE Comer of Section 34, <br />Twp 6 N, Rng 87 W, 6th P.M., along a bearing of S 37°lY W <br />Pond 003 (aka Grassy Creek Impoundment - 3640 feet from the SE Comer of Section <br />27, Twp 6 N, Rng 87 W, 6th P.M., along a bearing of N 77° W <br />PECOCO Pond - 1930 feet from the NW Corner of Section 2, Twp 5 N, Rng 87 W, 6th <br />P.M., along a bearing of S 06°40' E <br />We have reviewed the response, and agree that the installation of pumps would be acceptable at this time for Ponds 002 <br />and 003, and the PECOCO Pond, so long as the pumps are maintained in an operable condition, with the caveat that this <br />office may issue an order to backfill the ponds in the future if water stored out-of-priority is not released to the stream. If <br />backfilling of any of the ponds is not acceptable due to permitting requirements of other agencies, the operator should <br />consider obtaining a water court approved plan for augmentation to replace all out-of-priority depletions are replaced to <br />the sneam in time, place and amount to assure that injury does not occur to the vested water rights of other <br />appropriators. <br />Note that the description of the bypass structure for Pond 003 was unclear, but did not appear to meet our requirements. <br />If the operator would like us to consider the bypass structure option further, I suggest submittal of a diagram illustrating <br />the operation of the bypass accompanied by a detailed description of the operation. <br />As previously stated, changes in the call scenario may result in an order from the Division Engineer requiring the <br />installation of bypass structures capable of diverting all inflows azound the ponds and back to the stream, the installation <br />of low-level outlets capable of releasing all storage from the structures or breech of the stmctures to assure that senior <br />appropriators receive the water to which they are entitled by law. Review of the submitted materials indicates that the <br />operator is awaze of [his possibility and will fully inform the landowner of the State Engineer's authority in this regard. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.