My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-08-31_REVISION - C1994082 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1994082
>
2009-08-31_REVISION - C1994082 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:55:09 PM
Creation date
9/1/2009 3:04:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1994082
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
8/31/2009
Doc Name
Response to Adequacy Review (Round 3)
From
Seneca Coal Company
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
MR29
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.
/
3
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
S"q CrN Conwany Seneca Coal Compan <br />? Y <br />August 27, 2009 <br />Mr. Daniel Mathews <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />101 South 3`d, Suite 301 RECEIVED <br />Grand Junction, CO 81501 <br />(970) 242-5025 AUG 31 2009 <br />Division u, naciamation, <br />RE: Seneca Yoast Mine (Permit C-1994-082) Mining and Safety <br />Minor Revision No. 29 - Response to Adequacy Review (Round 3) <br />Mr. Mathews, <br />Seneca Coal Company (SCC) has reviewed your e-mail dated August 22, 2009 regarding MR-29 and has <br />developed the following response to the "new" issues. <br />• Do you have the seater sample analyses and suitability demonstration yet for the permanent pond demonstrations for ST-1 <br />and Pond 11A? If so they should be submitted (let me know if they were previously submitted), and application narrative <br />should be properly revised to reference the demonstrations. <br />Response: The application narrative has been updated and the analysis results are included as part of this <br />response. <br />• Pond ST-1 doesn't seem to hold water for any period of time at all, and as such seems more suited for a temporary erosion <br />control pond than a permanent stock pond. What areyour thoughts on that <br />Response: As the land owner, SCC would like to keep the pond as a permanent stock pond for wildlife use <br />and future livestock use. <br />f SCC has notyet reached agreement with PSC/Xcel regarding the fate of Pond 011 (permanent or not), then the current <br />status is that it is not permanent and could be reclaimed upon demonstration that it is no longer necessary for sediment <br />control. Because the landowner has requested that the pond be rrtained as permanent but SCC has notyet agreed to pursue <br />a permanent retention request, we will require that SCC include a statement in the appropriate section of the application (in <br />addition to the cover letter reference) explaining the consideration that has been given to the landowner's request, along with <br />the justification for not complying with the request atpresent (pursuant to Rule 2.05.5(1)(a)(iv)). That may seem <br />unnecessary orpossibly ridiculous toyou, but we do try to cover the bases with regard to landowner involvement in the process. <br />• <br />Seneca Coal Company . P.O. Box 670 • Hayden, Colorado 81639 <br />Telephone (970) 276-5219 • FAX (970) 276-5222
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.