My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP10781
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP10781
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:40:11 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:31:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
4/12/1994
Doc Name
1993 ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT
From
DMG
To
TWENTYMILE COAL CO
Permit Index Doc Type
ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT
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 /> <br />delays and re-hash of past conversations and information. I think <br />you would agree that neither party has the time for this type of <br />activity. <br />To alleviate the Divisions immediate concern, we have the following <br />suggestion. <br />* Develop one map to address the overlap areas of the TCC and CYCC <br />This can be one of the reclamation maps already in existence. <br />Determine to which permit each parcel of ground belongs; label <br />or stiple accordingly and produce two maps, the only <br />difference being the map title and or number. Any subsequent <br />changes or modifications done to one will ultimately then be <br />automatically made to the other map. This insures that <br />discrepancies are not generated due to drafting over the life <br />of the permits. <br />Specific areas noted during review are as follows. <br />* If the acreage values for TCC liability have been changed <br />to reflect inclusion of the road to the rail spur, why does <br />the map not denote this? What permitting action incorporates <br />this road into the disturbed area for the TCC permit? <br />* Why is the rock dust tank excluded from table 1 in the TCC <br />ARR? <br />* It was agreed that the waste rock disposal area would not <br />be included as TCC liability until approval. Now, TCC <br />indicates that area will not be included under TCC until it is <br />disturbed. Yet the area is denoted on the CYCC ARR map as TCC <br />liability. What is TCC's current position on this area and <br />why is there conflict between the two permits? The waste pile <br />is_ not an optional item, it will be constructed as per the <br />approved permit. Although the entire area will not be <br />disturbed at once, the approved area became part of the TCC <br />permit at the time of approval and is not an area which is <br />covered by the CYCC permit until such time as it is removed <br />from the TCC disturbed area. <br />* The CYCC permanent road from county road 27 to a point near <br />Pond A should be shaded as TCC liability. This road is used <br />and maintained by TCC and will outlive the CYCC permit by a <br />number of years given current mine life expectancies. <br />Please respond to the above issues within 3o days. If you have <br />questions please call me. <br />Sinc el <br />' ~~l,l,(i~.-~ <br />Ke A. Go ha <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.