My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP33080
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP33080
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:09:19 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 6:24:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
6/10/1994
Doc Name
1993 ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT
From
TWENTYMILE COAL CO
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT
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
iii iuiiiiiiiiiiii <br />~ Twenfymile Coal Company <br />June 7, 1994 <br />Kent Gorham <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Office of Mined Land Reclamation <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />RE: Annual Reclamation Report - 1993 <br />Permit No. C-82-056 <br />29616 Routt County Road p27 <br />Oak Creek, CO 80467 <br />Phone (303) 879-3800 <br />Ksr, r~fi/~cE) <br />JUN 10 1994 <br />Civ.'~iu:; <br />.~ <br />Dear Mr. Gorham: <br />The following are Twentymile's responses to the concerns raised in <br />the Division's review of the above referenced report. The format <br />of the response is to provide the Division's comment followed by <br />Twentymile's response. <br />DMG COMMENT - If the acreage values for TCC liability have been <br />changed to reflect inclusion of the road to the rail spur, why does <br />the map not denote this? What permitting action incorporates this <br />road into the disturbed area for the TCC permit? <br />RESPONSE - The map has been revised to show the above referenced <br />road is included within TCC's liability. From review of my records <br />the road was referenced in TR 91-12, submitted on February 13, <br />1991. If this is different from your understanding please advise <br />and we can straighten the paper work out to clearly identify the <br />permitting process and liability. <br />DMG COMMENT -Why is the rockdust tank excluded from table 1 in the <br />TCC ARR? <br />RESPONSE - The table has been revised so reflect the acreage <br />associated with the rock dust tank. The rock dust tank acreage was <br />inadvertently left off of the table. <br />DMG COMMENT - It was agreed that the waste rock disposal area would <br />not be included as TCC liability until approval. Now, TCC <br />indicates that area will not be included under TCC until it is <br />disturbed. Yet the area is denoted on the CYCC ARR map as TCC <br />liability. What is TCC's current position on this area and why is <br />there conflict between the two permits? The waste pile is not an <br />optional item, it will be constructed as per the approved permit. <br />Although the entire area will not be disturbed at once, the <br />approved area became part of the TCC permit at the time of approval <br />and is not an area which is covered by the CYCC permit until such <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.