2009-03-20_REVISION - C1982057 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TR-62- Midterm Review Responses (2nd round) Page 2 It is the water flowing into Pond 016 that will be available to replace the water from the two Friederich Springs, not the water in Pond 016. Therefore, the lack of a permanent status of Pond 016 is irrelevant; the water flowing into the pond (from the existing stream and springs in the area) would still be available to the Friederich's. Since the water rights for the two springs are owned by the Friederich's, SCC does not have the authority to file for an `alternate point of diversion (State Engineers office language)' for the two springs. It is up to the Friederich's to do so. SCC will not object to if they desire to do so. In regards to the CDRMS request to revise Attachment 16-A, SCC believes that this would not be correct. This attachment is a May 1989 water court approved augmentation plan. This plan specifically addressed the consumptive uses of the Seneca II-W Mine, in particular, the shop well and the use of Pond 006 for filling water trucks. SCC does not have the authority to alter this plan without water court approval. A more appropriate place to discuss the Friederich Springs would be in the text of Tab 16. As previously stated, page 11 of Tab 16 has been revised to address the Friederich Springs. 4. The Division requested that SCCprovide an additional Kill and Gully addendum to include the finalgeotechnical report and remedialplan for each of the Shrub Plot Slide and Pond 016 Slide. SCC committed to submitting the required information. This response is accepted. Please commit to submitting the addendum within 60 days of the final report. Response: SCC will submit, for review and approval, the final geotechnical report and selected remedial plan for each slide within 60 days of receipt of the final report. 5. The Division noted that updates to the revegetation plan were warranted. The original adequacy concerns from the Division were. a. The woody plant density standard for aspen planting areas needs to be defined, and b. Appendix 22-3,The `Aspen Study Plan "needs to be updated to incorporate the final study report for the original study plots, and to describe the ongoing aspenl senicebery establishment studies being conducted in cooperation with the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. Please update Tab 22 with the most recent reports at this time. We agree that it may be beneficial to wait to establish a woody plant density standard until more information is gained from the studies, but believe it should be addressed well in advance of Phase III bond release. According, SCC should (a) revisit the woody plant density standard for aspen planting areas with the next permit renewal, and (b) make the requested updates to Appendix 22-3 now, with TR-62. Response: (a) SCC is conducting monitoring and analyses to determine appropriate and reasonable woody plant density standards. A revision to update Tab 22 will be addressed in the next permit renewal or in advance of Phase III bond release request which ever comes sooner. (b) Appendix 22-3, Aspen Study Plan, contains the proposed studies to be conducted at the Seneca operations. The results of these studies, as they are completed, are submitted as part of the Annual Reclamation Report (ARR) submitted annually for the Seneca II-W Mine. There have been three (3) reports completed and submitted: • Transplanting Aspen on Reclaimed Coal-Mine Lands Using Drip Irrigation Qanuary 2006) • Transplanting Aspen on Reclaimed Coal-Mine Lands Using Drip Irrigation (February 2007) Seneca Coal Company • P.O. Box 670 • Hayden, Colorado 81639 Telephone (970) 276-5219 • FAX (970) 276-5222