Laserfiche WebLink
Peabod <br />1111 ENERGY <br />Hayden Gulch Terminal, LLC <br />Ms. Virginia Brannon, Division Director <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />303.866.3567 X 8135 <br />NOV � <br />DW*N OF F <br />Re: Hayden Gulch Terminal, LLC (Permit C-1992-081) —NOV CV -2016-002 <br />Dear Ms. Brannon: <br />29515 Routt County Road 27 <br />Oak Creek, CO 80467 <br />970.879 3800 <br />November 1, 2016 <br />RECr" ED <br />MAVON Or r cCLp,YATION <br />DINING ktID Sr EV <br />Hayden Gulch Terminal, LLC (HGT) is the permittee for the Hayden Gulch Loadout Facility, located near the <br />Town of Hayden. The permitted coal loadout facility, which consists of a rail spur and loop; coal stockpile, <br />handling, and loading facilities and equipment; and the Tie -Across Haulroad (as shown on the attached photo); <br />has been inactive for a number of years. HGT is proceeding with phased reclamation of this facility, and a <br />recent (09/21/16) Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety (CDRMS) inspection resulted in <br />issuance of a Notice of Violation (NOV CV -2016-002) for, "Failure to contain disturbance within the permit <br />area boundary". Given the specific circumstances, we feel that the NOV is unwarranted, and ask that you <br />review the specific circumstances, as detailed in the following discussions, and based on your review, withdraw <br />or terminate the NOV. <br />Following a management decision that retention of the Hayden Gulch coal loading facilities to support future <br />operations was no longer warranted, HGT reclaimed the associated surface facilities (coal stockpile, handling, <br />and loading facilities and equipment, along with ancillary structures) in 2011, and filed a partial Phase I bond <br />release request for the 11.9 acre facilities area. The partial bond release was approved in July 2012. There was <br />some hope that the rail spur and loop could be transitioned to another beneficial use, so it was retained. After <br />exploring various options, the decision was made in late 2015 to proceed with removal of the rail, ties, and <br />ballast from the rail spur and loop. HGT contracted with S&S Salvage, an experienced salvage, demolition and <br />reclamation firm, to complete the required railroad salvage work. S&S began the railroad salvage work on the <br />rail loop portion of the spur on the west side of Routt County Road 37 (RCR37), and was able to use previously <br />disturbed areas for equipment and materials (rails, ties, and ballast) staging. <br />As the work proceeded beyond the rail loop to the north/south portion of the spur on the east side of RCR37, the <br />permitted disturbance area for the spur was not wide enough for both the safety of required equipment <br />operations and staging of equipment and materials. Options for dealing with this situation included; 1) Staging <br />equipment and materials in the areas previously used for the work on the loop portion of the spur; 2) Staging at <br />an off-site location; or 3) Utilizing adjacent Peabody -owned or leased lands for equipment and material staging. <br />The first two options would require significant and almost continuous project traffic on and crossing the <br />connecting County road (RCR37), posing safety concerns, resulting in potential dust generation, and being very <br />inefficient, since equipment and materials would be continually moving between the work and staging area(s). <br />Peabody owns the lands immediately adjacent to the north/south portion of the spur and owns or leases the lands <br />immediately adjacent to the eastern portion of the rail loop (see attached ownership plat) and leases these lands <br />for hay production. At the time this work was occurring, these hay fields had been cut, so Peabody contacted <br />our leasee, and with his concurrence gave S&S permission to use the edge of the field areas adjacent to the spur <br />for equipment and materials staging. As noted in the inspection report associated with the NOV (attached for <br />reference) two small areas were affected totaling less than 1.5 acres. Activities in these areas were limited to <br />equipment and materials staging and did not include any significant earthwork or grading. The only minor work <br />