GENERAL34245 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. John Spangler - 2 - February 1, 1991 Given the apparent facts that Eastside Coal Company does intend to operate the mine in the future and that Garfield County has indicated that the permitting process is open to them, we believe there may be no legal basis for the Division to order reclamation to commence immediately, as you have proposed. We have written a letter to Garfield County to obtain written clarification of the situation. We will maintain close contact with the Garfield County Planning Department and will act appropriately if the situation changes. Item 2: - Coal-Loading-Operations During Temporary Cessation We are aware that coal loading and hauling operations were conducted by Eastside during a period of temporary cessation, and in fact our staff had authorized this activity. We have since clarified to the staff that coal loading and hauling operations constitute "surface coal mining operations" and thus cannot be conducted during temporary cessation. Given the fact that Eastside had advised us of their intent to load and haul coal from stockpiles at the mine and we had authorized that activity, it would be inappropriate for us to pursue an enforcement action. We have previously responded to this issue in our response to the Garfield Citizens' Alliance August, 1990 733 petition. At this time, we concur with your proposal that the Division should verify that appropriate, valid local permits are in effect for permitted operations and that this verification should be documented during our review of records. We will modify the records check list form which our inspectors reference on complete inspections to include local land use permits and will notify coal operators that we will be checking for documentation of valid local land use permits. In those instances where valid local Dermits are not in place we will consult with the appropriate local officials in determining the proper course of action. Item-3: = Loadouts and-Technical Revisions We acknowledge that at times in the past the Division has handled off-site loadout proposals as technical revisions when they should properly have been processed as permit revisions. Rule 2.08.4(31 requires that any extensions to the area covered 6y a permit, except for incidental boundary revisions, shall be made by application fora permit revision. Staff has been made aware that proposals to add off-site coal Loadouts and Drocessing facilities to existing permits are to be processed as Dermit revisions to comply with the requirement of Rule 2.08.4(31. It appears that we may have erred in failing to notify the City of Rifle of the loadout referenced on page 2 of your letter, although the revision was properly noticed in the local paper and the permit identification sign was erected as required. We would point out that the October 31, 1989 technical revision merely relocated a previously approved loadout site by approximately 200 feet. The original loadout area was approved in October, 1987. Both loadout areas were in locations which were obviously set up for rail sidings, and had been previously disturbed. Neither loadout was ever used by the operator and they are no longer approved for use by Eastside. as the most recently approved loadout was withdrawn from the permit in October, 1990. Had either site been used by Eastside, it would have been the responsibility of the operator to obtain the necessary local approval prior to initiation of operations at the site.