My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-09-08_REVISION - C1994082
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1994082
>
2008-09-08_REVISION - C1994082
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:36:07 PM
Creation date
9/8/2008 1:50:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1994082
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
9/8/2008
Doc Name
Response to Preliminary Adequacy Comments
From
Seneca Coal Company
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR37
Email Name
DTM
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.
/
12
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
Technical revision 37 <br />Response to Adequacy Comments <br />Page 9 <br />• PSC - SCC has been in contact with PSCO regarding the final decision documentation of permanent facilities <br />including the powerline. Again, it is very difficult to obtain written documentation/decisions from utilities and <br />bureaucracies in a timely manner. The request letter will be forwarded as soon as received. <br />27. The Surface Disturbance Boundary is well marked within the mine arra portion of the permit area on map Exhibit 20-2, but is not <br />delineated within the entrance road portion of the permit area, which connects the mine area with RCR-27. Of particular note is the <br />area labeled "Dragline Deadhead" along a stream segment in the northern portion of the read corridor segment. Also, topographic lines <br />are not provided for the portion of the permit area near the intersection with RCR-27, which is owned by Hallenbeck. <br />Please amend Exhibit 20-2 to include disturbance boundary delineation along the road corridor, including <br />"Draphne Deadhead". Also, please describe the nature and extent of disturbance and reclamation on the <br />Hallenbeck property, and include topographic contours for the portion of the Hallenbeck property that <br />was disturbed. <br />Response: It is SCC's understanding, that during the initial permitting effort, the entire area within the haul road <br />corridor and the "Dragline Deadhead" was required to be bonded for disturbance, therefore no disturbance boundary <br />delineating actual disturbance has ever been established. In the current disturbed acreage reconciliation all of this area is <br />considered disturbed. <br />With regard to the "Hallenbeck" property, Routt County Road and Bridge Department re-disturbed and regraded the <br />majority of the area when County Road 27 was upgraded in this area, without any input from SCC. SCC has previously <br />submitted a letter from Dennis Hallenbeck requesting that the property be left as is. SCC has provided topographic <br />contours for the area on the attached Exhibit 20-2, Post Mining Topography Map. <br />garding a possible access agreement that <br />• 28. At the time the TR-37 application was submitted, SCC was in negotiations with BIM re <br />would allow for retention of an additional segment of light use road to connect LU3A to LU3B, through the BLM parcel in the mine <br />area. <br />Please update appropriate sections of the application as warranted to reflect any changes in land <br />ownership or permanent facility status with respect to retention ofa light use road segment across the <br />BLMparcel (including request for road retention from BLM). <br />Response: Appropriate sections of the permit will be updated when changes/agreements are finalized. <br />29. Please amend the application as warranted to incorporate permanent channel additions or modifications <br />determined to be appropriate based on erosional patterns observed and documented in the 2008 Rill and <br />Gully Survey, following the heavy snowmelt runoffnn 2008. <br />Response: SCC has spoken with Ms. Sandy Brown and Dan Mathews regarding the extent to which the PAP needs <br />updating based on erosional patterns observed and documented in the 2008 Rill and Gully Survey, following the heavy <br />snowmelt runoff in 2008. Consensus was that new channels providing drainage to significant watersheds would require <br />that the PAP be amended, but small channels that remediate rills and gullys would not require design and approval. At <br />this time only new channel YPM-24 has been added to the PAP. <br />•
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.