My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL36506
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL36506
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:57:01 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:45:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
1/26/1990
Doc Name
STIPULATION 15 Letter
From
PEABODY COAL CO
To
MLRD
Permit Index Doc Type
Stipulation
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 />Pe~y <br />999 <br />• <br />PEABODY COAL COMPANY <br />Wor,tom Divir.lon <br />January 23, 1990 <br />Mr. Carl Mount <br />Colorado Mined Land <br />Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />215 Centennial Building <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RE: Stipulation 15, Permit C-82-057 <br />Dear Mr. Mount: <br />1300 Soup Yale <br />Flegetafl. Arizona 86001 <br />(602) 7745253 <br />I!"1! "~ ~ ~ E'° ~ D <br />JAN ^ Q l;l~0 <br />MINED L.NI~w <br />C~ECLAMATION DIVISION <br />In response to your Stipulation 15 incompleteness determination of <br />January 5, 1990, I would like to offer the following comments. <br />• First, Peabody's submittal of December 21, 1989 was divided into two <br />parts. One part, pertaining to the bond calculations, responded <br />directly to the requirement of Stipulation 15. Since the approval of <br />TR 5 specifically agreed that there was adequate bond in force at Seneca <br />II-W to cover disturbances associated with Haul Road F and the <br />additional topsoil stockpiles, the stipulation was attached to the <br />approval merely to finalize the estimated reclamation liability costs <br />related to the current bonding level. Neither the stipulation nor any <br />of the correspondence or discussions which led up to the final approval <br />of the technical revision or development of the stipulation specified <br />that this information be submitted as a technical revision. <br />The second part of the December 21, 1989 submittal included corrections <br />to culvert and ditch calculations and corresponding corrections to the <br />appropriate exhibits. By letter of October 18, 1989, Peabody submitted <br />responses to technical adequacy review questions contained in the <br />Division's letters to Peabody of August 14, 1989 and September 7, 1989. <br />As stated in our letter of October 18, 1989, the ditch and culvert <br />questions did not relate to any activity related to TR 5. However, <br />Peabody agreed to make the requested changes to already approved ditch <br />and culvert designs by December 22, 1989. <br />With the above discussion in mind, attached please find three copies of <br />the required application form and proposed public notice for a technical <br />revision to modify culvert and ditch design. <br />• However, the bond recalculation information does not require a technical <br />revision in that nothing in the revised calculations required a change <br />in the current bonding level. Also, there is no provision in the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.