My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-10-06_REVISION - C1994082
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1994082
>
2008-10-06_REVISION - C1994082
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:36:55 PM
Creation date
10/7/2008 3:51:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1994082
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
10/6/2008
Doc Name
Adequacy Response
From
DRMS
To
Seneca Coal Company
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.
/
4
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
limit, the State Engineer's office does not need to review the permanency request". In the <br />September 4, 2008 response SCC provided the following citation from the CRS Title 35- <br />Agriculture, Article 49-Livestock Water Tank Act of Colorado, Section 35-49-107(2). <br />35-49-107 Construction requirements. <br />(2) -The provisions of this section and section 35-49-112 specifying approval by the state <br />engineer and providing a fee therefore shall not apply to dams having a vertical height not <br />exceeding five feet from the bottom of the channel to the bottom of the spillway and which <br />impound not more than two acre feet of water. <br />However, there is apparently contradictory language in other sections of the statute. Based on <br />our discussions with State Engineer staff, it is apparently the case that, while State Engineer <br />approval and fee requirements do not apply for small stockponds, the Office of the State <br />Engineer does need to be notified of all dams constructed for stockponds. Please provide the <br />Division with documentation that proper notification has been made and revise the <br />Stockpond ST-1 Permanent Pond Demonstration accordingly to reflect this, or provide a <br />commitment to provide such documentation within an appropriate revision application, <br />prior to submittal of a Phase 1 bond release application for Stockpond ST-1. <br />24. An acceptable response was submitted. Item Resolved. <br />25. This concern was addressed within Minor Revision 28 (MR-28) approved by the Division on <br />August 6, 2008. Item Resolved. <br />26. Requested clarifications regarding permanent road requests were provided. Operator responses <br />indicate that SCC has been in contact with Yampa Valley Electric Association (YVEA) and <br />Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO), and has requested necessary letters documenting <br />requests for retention of the power line extending from the Rockcastle road up through the <br />permit area to the substation, however such documentation has not yet been provided to SCC. <br />Please provide amended language in Attachment 20-1 that commits SCC to provide <br />(within an appropriate revision application) documentation from YVEA and PSCO <br />regarding their request for retention of the power line and any associated electrical <br />structures, prior to submittal of Phase 1 bond release for the structures. <br />Note that, since the necessary documentation has not yet been provided, the pending SL-2, <br />phase 1 bond release application will need to be amended to exclude the YVEA power line <br />from the area requested for release. <br />27. Requested clarification regarding disturbed area delineation along the mine entrance road was <br />provided. Map Exhibit 20-2 was properly updated as requested to provide topographic <br />contours for the area within the Hallenbeck property near the junction of the entrance road and <br />County Road 27. Item Resolved. <br />28. In the original review letter, the Division requested an update regarding the status of retention <br />of a light use road segment connecting proposed Light Use Roads 3A and 3B. The operator's <br />response was that appropriate sections of the permit will be updated when changes/agreements <br />[with BLM] are finalized. Although the "missing" road segment is not depicted on the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.