Laserfiche WebLink
~r <br />Ms. Erica Crosby <br />February 3, 1997 <br />Page 2 <br />47. The road proposed from the <br />constructed through an area of <br />of which appear to be relativel <br />renewed instability in this <br />construction disturb the head <br />accessed from Grassy Creek? <br />1999 pit down to Pond 11 will be <br />landslide/mudflow deposits, some <br />~ young. what is the potential for <br />drainage as mining and road <br />of it? why couldn't Pond 11 be <br />Seneca prepared the following response to question #47, which was <br />submitted in our March 13, 1995 package: <br />The landslide/mudflow area as depicted by CDMG, has not been <br />field verified at this time and, therefore, the stability <br />question cannot be assessed. In the interest of permit submittal, <br />the monitoring road has been removed from the map. Mining is not <br />being requested in the area of the CDMG noted slide location and, <br />therefore, should not present any problems. <br />For your benefit since you were not involved in the initial <br />permit review, Seneca proposed constructing a light-use road from <br />the pit area down the entire drainage to pond 11 in the initial <br />permit submittal. The Division felt that access for equipment <br />during construction of pond 11 and monitoring purposes later on <br />would be best if Seneca utilized Grassy Creek road. In fact, this <br />is what both parties agreed on since the pond is located directly <br />off of Grassy Creek road. By removing the light-use road down the <br />entire length of the drainage, we would not disturb the drainage <br />at all. Again, the field survey verified the instability of the <br />area without constructing a light use road in it, let alone <br />constructing a sedimentation pond. By utilizing Grassy Creek <br />road, all potential disturbed areas associated with pond 11 will <br />be minimized and use existing facilities where available. Seneca <br />derives its rights of access to this parcel from that certain <br />Assignment of Colorado State Coal Mining Lease No. 598/13-5 <br />approved 10/03/94 from Peabody Coal Company(PCC) to Seneca Coal <br />Company(SCC) and that certain Assignment of Coal Lease dated <br />09/15/94 from PCC to SCC, recorded in Book 701, at Page 2395 on <br />10/12/94, see Appendix 3-4 of the Yoast PAP. <br />I did not prepare the initial design for pond 011. This person is <br />no longer employed by Peabody Western or Seneca Coal Company. I <br />am sure they evaluated all options on the best possible location <br />for the pond and determined it was at the bottom of this <br />drainage, where the Division approved it, as well as the design <br />itself. Seneca feels based on the preceding discussion that the <br />pond is in the best location and that achieving a minimum static <br />safety factor of 1.3 for the pond embankment should be attainable <br />at this site. As was the case with pond 10, Seneca will utilize <br />