My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-12-04_REVISION - C1982057
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1982057
>
2009-12-04_REVISION - C1982057
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:57:28 PM
Creation date
12/8/2009 2:10:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
12/4/2009
Doc Name
Bond Release Review
From
DRMS
To
Seneca Coal Company
Type & Sequence
SL2
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.
/
2
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
One additional concern we have noted regarding permanent roads, is that there is a short <br />segment of unnamed light use road within the disturbed area near the substation site. The road <br />extends along the ridgeline from the curve on LU-1 approximately 500 feet to the northwest, <br />where it ties into an existing ranch road outside of the disturbance boundary. The road is <br />included within the SL-2 release request area, but has not been proposed as a permanent road <br />within Permit Attachment 20-2 or depicted on permit Exhibit 20-2. <br />One option for addressing these concerns would be for SCC to submit a technical revision <br />application to incorporate the required information into the permit prior to SL-2 approval. <br />Required information would include appropriate final reclamation As Built documentation for <br />each of the light use roads and the "J" Road segment, as well as additional map and narrative <br />information and landowner retention request for the currently unnamed light use road that <br />branches off LU-1. The other option would be for the Division to proceed with SL-2 review and <br />proposed decision, with the road corridors in question to be excluded from the proposed <br />approval decision. My understanding from our conversation yesterday is that you would prefer <br />the latter option, rather than delaying SL-2 review to accommodate necessary revision <br />preparation and review. The necessary documentation would need to be incorporated into the <br />permit prior to any future Phase 1 bond release request that would include the subject road <br />corridors. Please confirm that this is the case, or let me know if you have further <br />comment or questions. <br />Please contact me if you have any questions. <br />Sincer ly, <br />Daniel athews <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />C: Denver File
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.