Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Revisions <br />Two technical revisions (TR's) and two minor revisions (MR's) have <br />been approved since the Division's proposed renewal decision was <br />issued March 10, 1993. These revisions are summarized below. <br />TR 08 proposed approval decision was issued August 29, 1994. The <br />revision addressed permit modifications to reflect the acquisition <br />of Grand Valley Coal Company, the permittee and operator, by White <br />Oak Mining and Construction Company, Inc. <br />TR 09 proposed approval decision was issued January 26, 1995. The <br />revision addressed permit modifications to reflect the acquisition <br />of Grand Valley Coal Company, the permittee and operator, by <br />Kinvest, Inc. <br />MR 12 proposed approval decision was issued October 3, 1994. The <br />revision provided updated sediment/runoff demonstrations for Small <br />Area Exemptions (SAE'S) #1 and #5. These SAE's consist of an <br />excavated sediment trap and a vegetated berm and silt fence located <br />downgradient from the mine fan on the mine bench. <br />MR 13 proposed approval decision was issued July 5, 1995. The <br />revision allowed for elimination of the= requirement for an <br />excavated sediment trap of specific design dimension, adjacent to <br />the fill material stockkpile on the mine bench. Revision approval <br />was based on sediment control which would be provided by vegetative <br />cover and a silt fence. <br />IV. SUMMARY OF CHANGES REQUESTED <br />Pursuant to Rule 2.08. <br />review and finds that <br />needed to ensure future <br />Mining Reclamation Act <br />Land Reclamation Board <br />revisions required and <br />the revisions. <br />Rule 2.04.7 <br />3, the Division has conducted a midterm <br />certain revisions and modifications are <br />compliance with the Colorado Surface Coal <br />and the Regulations of the Colorado Mined <br />for Coal Mining. This section details the <br />an explanation of the reason for requiring <br />1. Some clarification is requested regarding certain statements <br />in the groundwater baseline section of the application. On Page 4- <br />15, it is stated that the interpreted depth to water table may not <br />be a true expression of the pressure in the artesian aquifer. Is <br />this a result of the uncertainty of the geophysical interpretation <br />