2015-11-17_REVISION - C1981035 (3)

Home Browse Search

We respectfully disagree. Our client is a neighbor of this mining operation, as are many other concerned residents, and consider 87.3 acres of land and mineral rights to be a substantial amount. Therefore, we believe that the Division may have erred in these determination and that this submittal by GCC (including TRs 23, 24, 25 and 26) is more properly reviewed as a Permit Revision.3 We ask the Division to review this matter and determine that a Permit Revision is required. The Coal Rules state as follows: "2.08.4 Revisions to a Permit (1) General requirements. A permit revision shall be obtained: (d) For any extensions to the area to be covered by a permit, except for incidental boundary revisions." [emphasis added]. We do not think that an addition of almost 90 acres is an "incidental boundary revision." Technical Revision 24 (TR -24) was submitted on May 5, 2015 and called complete, after additional submittals, on May 15, 2015. TR -24 remains under review at the present time. The Technical Revision as submitted contained substantial and previously undocumented and perhaps irreconcilable changes in the permitted acreage (see La Plata County comment letter dated June 11, 2015 and comments in the DRMS June 14, 2015 Adequacy Review letter) and surface and coal ownership. Additionally, the Midterm Review required changes in control of surface water flows and monitoring of surface and groundwater flows. This has required additional modifications to the permit in the form of other technical revisions dealing with surface water controls (TR -25) and groundwater monitoring (TR -26). Such measures (especially in the collection of baseline surface and ground water quality) should have been done prior to approval of mining at the King Coal II Mine, since provisions for baseline monitoring are contained in these revisions. For true baseline conditions, surface and groundwater parameters must be obtained for at least five quarters prior to the commencement of mining, not after mining has started. These modifications outlined in TRs 25 and 26 should not be split out from TR -24 and TR 23 because this results in a "piecemeal" approach to regulation that obviates the 3 At the last local land use hearing on this project, the room was packed. The only credible explanation for the paucity of public comment on these TRs is that no one knew about them, which is precisely what happens when the TR process is used, or misused.