2017-10-11_REVISION - C1981038

• Permit No: C1981038
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 10/11/2017
• Doc Name: Land Use Changes of Colorado Coal Mines
• From: DRMS
• To: Richard Rudin
• Type & Sequence: PR5
• Email Name: JRS
• Email Name: CCW
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

10/16/2017 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: Land -Use Changes at Colorado Coal Mines
STATE OF DRMS_CoalAdmin - DNR, DNR <dnr [e-mail]>
'r
COLORADO
Stark - DNR, Jim <[e-mail]> Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:46 AM
To: Kelly Yeager <[e-mail]>
Cc: Clayton Wein - DNR <[e-mail]>, DNR DRMS_CoalAdmin - DNR <dnr—drms—coal—[e-mail]>
Mr. Yeager,
Per our conversation a few minutes ago, I would like to clarify a couple of points regarding my 10/11 email to Mr. Rudin.
First, in the initial email from Mr. Wein of our office, there was a misstatement of the Division's regulatory requirement
regarding an alternate post -mining land -use. He used the word "must" approve instead of the actual wording, which is
"may" approve. As you know, this completely changes the reading of Rule 4.16.3. Second, the six conditions of Rule
4.16.3 that I detailed in my email are conditions the BRL must satisfy with the Division and not the County. While there
may be some overlap in jurisdiction, our two processes run independently and we follow our own laws and Rules. I hope
this clarification helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Thanks.
James R Stark
Senior Environmental Protection
COLORADO
Division of Reclamation,
A&V Mining and Safety
Dcpa,t me'Al of Naturnl Re sourc(rs
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stark - DNR, Jim <jim,[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Land -Use Changes at Colorado Coal Mines
To: Richard Rudin <[e-mail]>
Got it. Yes, there was a misstatement regarding the "fact" that the Division "must" approve any post -mining land -use
change (in the form of PR) if the county approves such a change. While county approval is a requirement for the
Division to approve any land -use change, there are also six conditions that must be met in Rule 4.16.3(1)-(6).
The language of 4.16.3 states that the Division may approve an alternate land use if 6 criteria are met. These include:
the proposed change is compatible with the adjacent land use and existing (governmental) land -use policies (4.16.3(1));
specific plans are prepared and submitted showing the feasibility of the change (4.16.3(2)); the proposed use will not
present actual or probably hazard to the public or the threat of water flow diminution or pollution (4.16.3(3)); the change
shall not involve unreasonable delays in reclamation (4.16.3(4)); and measures must be in place to mitigate adverse
impacts to fish and wildlife and T&E species (4.16.3(5)). Rule 4.16.3(6) deals with a land -use change to cropland and is
not applicable in this case.
If BRL receives Delta County approval for the change in land -use, the Division will address each of the above Rules to
ensure that the proposed change meets the Division's criteria for an alternate post -mining land -use. The Division has
requested additional information and clarification in the form of the Division's Preliminary Adequacy Review Letter but
BRL has not yet responded. Once BRL responds, the Division anticipates a second letter will be sent out, as several new
issues have been identified.
Please let know if you have any additional questions.
https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AGLcOmSNX7Vl oRVVZxrULDal_cEvkVxT7glJPDf7cUxM2o7doVSKVV/u/O/?ui=2&ik=deb7fOcd20&jsver=BNKYfl ymS-0.... 1/3