My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-07-29_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2010-07-29_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:17:00 PM
Creation date
7/29/2010 12:54:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
7/29/2010
Doc Name
Response to Adequacy Review No. 3 (Response to Morgan Property Issues)
From
Western Fuels Colorado
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
PR6
Email Name
SB1
MLT
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.
/
94
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
Attachment 1 <br />Responses to JoEllen Turner faxes dated June 4, 2010 <br />In the following, each specific comment concerning PR 06 by Ms. Turner is set <br />forth in full in its original form, followed by the specific response of WFC. WFC <br />has added numbers to each comment for ease of reference, but otherwise has <br />not attempted to alter the comments in any way (though some typographical <br />errors may have been introduced by the scanning process). WFC made no <br />attempt to correct any typographical or grammatical errors in the original, or to <br />edit the text in any other way (including the frequent use of text in "all caps" in the <br />original). <br />Ms. Turner submitted two comment letters dated June 4, 2010. One of these <br />contains comments that specifically reference sections of the PR 06 permit <br />revision (see Attachment 9 hereto). The other letter contains comments of a <br />legal nature that appear to be interpretations of the applicable regulations (see <br />Attachment 10 hereto). WFC will respond specifically to the comments in both <br />letters, but will not provide responses to legal analyses of a general nature such <br />as those set out in Attachment 10. Based on its preliminary review, WFC is <br />content that the OSM interim response (Attachment 8 hereto) is an adequate <br />response to the comments and legal analysis contained in Attachment 10. <br />A. Responses to Comments in Attachment 9. <br />Comment No. 1: <br />Page 2.03.4 "General caretaking activities but no mining or other <br />disturbances." What about the CC ditch when all the pipe and re-routing <br />goes in? <br />WFC Response: <br />It is unclear how this comment relates to whether or not the permit should be <br />revised as WFC has proposed. Installation of the pipeline for transportation of <br />CCC water across certain properties as contemplated by the reclamation <br />planning process involves minimal, temporary disturbance of the land and is a <br />net benefit to the landowner because surface lands previously occupied by a <br />ditch can be utilized by the landowner following pipeline installation. <br />Comment No. 2: <br />"New Horizon 1 is not addressed in this permit renewal." It's not a <br />RENEWAL, it's a REVISION. <br />WFC Response: Noted.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.