Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SUMMARY <br />The Review Process, Description of the Environment <br />and <br />Description of the Operations and Reclamation Plan <br />The Review Process <br />Peabody Coal Company submitted a permit application to conduct surface coal <br />mining operations at the Seneca II-W Mine on November 29, 1982. The <br />application was deemed incomplete December 8, 1982. Peabody Coal Company <br />resubmitted the permit application on December 7, 1984. This submittal <br />adequately addressed the incompleteness issues and was deemed complete <br />December 31, 1984. <br />The coal to be mined is owned by the Federal government except a small portion <br />of the southern mine area owned by Hayden Public Library. Copies of the <br />permit application were submitted to the Office of Surface Mining for <br />distribution to appropriate federal agencies for review. Copies of the permit <br />application were also submitted to other state agencies for review. Review by <br />the Division and other agencies revealed concerns which were detailed in the <br />Preliminary Adequacy Review letter of March 5, 1985. Peabody Coal Company <br />responded to these concerns on May 1, 1985 and June 7, 1985 by inserting <br />revised pages into the permit document. <br />The Division received four (4) sets of comments during the initial public <br />comment period which was initiated January 10, 1985 by the acceptance of a <br />complete permit application. A summary of the comments and Peabody Coal <br />Company's responses are as follows: <br />1. Westgas has two parallel high pressure gas lines that could possibly <br />be affected by the tie-across haul road. <br />Peabody and Westgas are currently negotiating an agreement for road <br />construc ti on. <br />2. Mr. Fletcher Scott expressed concern over protection of his oil, gas <br />and mineral rights within the proposed permit application. <br />The proposed disturbance within the area of Mr. Scott's rights is <br />surface disturbance fora haul road corridor. This will not affect <br />Mr. Scott's rights. Mr. Scott was informed of this in a letter dated <br />February 11, 1985. <br />3. Mr. Craig Weaver was concerned that the tie-across haul road would <br />adversely affect a spring for which he has an ajudicated water right. <br />Peabody Coal Company relocated the haul road so that it will not <br />affect Mr. Weaver's water right. <br />-5- <br />