2009-01-26_REVISION - C1982057 (2)

Home Browse Search

TR-62- Midterm Review Responses Page 2 (8) Revised Exhibit 20-2 appears to depict existing topography (flat bench with steep outslopes) in the Shop Facility area, rather than re graded `AOC"topography. This topography was appare ntly incorporated onto the map erroneously within a previous revision. Appropriate final topography for this area (Pending approval of any future facilities retention revision) is depicted on the version of Exhibit 20-2 that was certified on 10/22/04. Please revise Exhibit 20.2 to replace posmiine topography in the Shop Facility area, with the postmine contours depicted on the 10122104 certified version ofExhibit2a2. Response: The insinuation that the currently approved postmine topography in the current Shop Facilities area was erroneously incorporated during a previous revision is not correct. The current postmining topography was approved sometime during the review and approvals of TR-45 and PR-05. PR-05 underwent extreme scrutiny for 13 months beginning in May 2005. Therefore SCC doesn't believe that it is appropriate for the Division to suddenly require change to this approved PMT. (9) In two of the landowner letters provided with MR-61, there are requests for retention of powerlines. Retention of powerlines and any associated electrical facilities does not appear to have been addressed within the narrative of the operations or reclamation plan, and the locations of all of the electrical facilities proposed for retention for the postmining land use do not appear to have been depicted on Exhibit 20-2. Retention of various facilities for postmining use is addressed on page 10 of Tab 12, but electrical facilities to be retained are not addressed. Please revise Exhibit 20-2 and appropriate permit text to describe and identify any electrical facilities to be retained for the postmining land use, and address the reasons for retention, pursuant to Rule 1.04(71). Response: MR-61 was withdrawn. The requests for additional permanent structures are included in this package. (10)The reason for retention of the various proposed permanent road segments is evident, with the exception of the short light use segment that extends from the shop area to the shop well. Unless and until the well and shop are approved for the postmine land use, there would appear to be no justification for retention of the road segment. Please revise Exhibit 20-2 to eliminate the subject road segment, unless proper justification for retention can be provided. Response: Exhibit 20-2, Postmining Topography and Drainage, has been revised. 2. Map Exhibit 7-1A (Hydrologic Monitoring Map South Area) was apparently never revised to depict the new W-25 series monitoring wells that replaced the failed W-24 series wells, near Pond 016A. Please submit a properly amended map Exhibit 7-1A, depicting the location of the [- 2S series monitoring wells. Response: Exhibit 7-1A has been updated and is included in this package. 3. Earlier tbisyear, Mr. George Fnederich, who owns surface in the South Mine portion of the permit area, brought to our attention a concern he had regarding what he rrferrrd to as an `artesian well'; that had been located on hir property on a tributary of Hubberson Gulch. He recalled that the well had been located in the vicinity of where Pond 016A is now situated, prior to mining in the area, and he had a photo dated 1999, showing a small diameter PVC pipe discharging into Seneca Coal Company • P.O. Box 670 • Hayden, Colorado 81639 Telephone (970) 276-5219 9 FAX (970) 276-5222