2018-01-29_REVISION - C1981038

• Permit No: C1981038
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 1/29/2018
• Doc Name: Comment
• From: Judy Martin
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: PR5
• Email Name: CCW
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

1/30/2018 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: Extension of C1981038 PR05--should not be renewal of extension
STATE OF DRMS_CoalAdmin - DNR, DNR <dnr [e-mail]>
'r
COLORADO
Fwd: Extension of C1981038 PR05--should not be renewal of extension
1 message
Wein - DNR, Clayton <[e-mail]> Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:56 PM
To: DNR DRMS_CoalAdmin - DNR <dnr—drms—coal—[e-mail]>
Good afternoon Alysha,
The following letter is a comment from a concerned citizen regarding the Bowie No. 1 Mine's PR -5. Please include the
letter in the Laserfiche file for the revision.
Thank you,
Clayton Wein
Environmental Protection Specialist
°
COLORADO
Division of Reclamation,
,
Mining and Safety
Department of dUalural Resources
P 303.866.3567 x 8144 ( F 303.832.8106
1313 Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, CO 80203
clayton.wein@stateocoous I http://mining@stateocoous
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Judy Martin <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:14 PM
Subject: Extension of C1981038 PR05--should not be renewal of extension
To: "Stark - DNR, Jim" <jim.stark@stateocoous>, Clayton Wein - DNR <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Brannon, Ginny" <Ginny.brannon@stateocoous>, Richard Rudin <[e-mail]>, Steve Harper
<[e-mail]>
Last month Clayton approved the extension until January 31 of C1981038 PR05, even though Delta County had rejected
the application for the specific development plan for Paonia Holdings LLC and Bowie Resources LLC. The reason given
was that Bowie was talking to the county about further options.
The application PR05 was made with referral to the county approval process. The approval was denied. 7 months of
proposed meetings, changed meeting dates, two public hearings and a final meeting with various county commissions in
December finally resulted in denial of the application. If Bowie is now trying to claim that the original application under
consideration by DRMS is not contingent on county approval, we consider this a major and material change in the original
application and a denial of the county's decision made in the public interest.
In addition, the PR05 application made by Bowie to change the post mining use of the area did NOT include the 60 acres
on Stevens Gulch which the applicant plans to change use to residential. Thus, to include the acreage on Stevens Gulch
as residential now, would constitute a material change in the PR 05.
Under both these circumstances the application PR05 should be voided and if Bowie and Paonia Holdings LLC wants to
apply again to DRMS for a Permit revision asking for a change of use, then they need a new application for a permit
revision. Our group of concerned property owners do not want a prolonged PR05 application process --with adequacy
letters taking months to prepare and then be responded to when Bowie decides to do so, which delays any reclamation
plan changes or timeline.
Our group of concerned property owners are going into an informal meeting on Bowie's application for renewal permit
with a hope that the meeting will be one where we can set the new scope of the reclamation plan (given all the issues that
came up during the PR05 discovery process) and a timeline we can all live with. If, on the other hand, the PR05
application decision is extended, even though the county denied the application for change of use, this is a perversion of
the DRMS system of reclamation.
https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AB-Riwk1 CBixZyYl Af\NCSKV81 elViE9eG_hgkmylzOERAYdrgOFO/u/O/?ui=2&ik=deb7fOcd2O&jsver=diY4ZTwxD6E.en.... 1/2