GENERAL43153 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Summarv The Review Process Seneca Coal Company submitted an application for a new permit on November 16, 1994. The application was deemed wmplete on November 21, 1994, and notification of the complete application was sent to required entities (per Rule 2.7.3(3)(b)) the same day. A public notice of the application was published in the I-I~y~en Valley Press once a week for four consecutive weeks beginning December 15, 1994. The Division transmitted preliminary adequacy review letters on January 20 and 23, 1995. On February 24, 1995, the Division requested compliance information from all other coal mining regulatory agencies in which the applicant and its controllers operate, to determine whether those entities had any unabated violations, cessation orders, or unpaid civil penalties. No other regulatory agency reported any of these permit conditions. The Division queried the Applicant Violator System (AVS) on December 19, 1994 to obtain a recommendation for approval of the permit application based on the applicant and its owners' and controllers' compliance record. The system recommended the application be denied since Seneca Coal Company was linked to an allegedly unpaid federal civil penalty, a state issued cessation order, and unpaid Abandoned Mined Land (AML) fees. A follow up recommendation by the OSM on December 20, 1994, was that the permit could be conditionally issued since the aforementioned problems were in the process of resolution. On June 28, 1995, the Division queried the AVS. The system again recommended the application be denied due to 5 West Virginia AML violations and 1 West Virginia Audit violation. A follow up recommendation by the OSM on June 28, 1995 overturned the system recommendation to issue because Peabody paid its shaze of the AML and Audit debt noted in AVS. The final AVS check will be conducted prior to issuance of the permit. During the review, the Division received a number of comments on the application. A summary of those comments and their resolution follows. On December 5, 1994, the Division received comments from the Division of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer. The Office requested additional information regarding the water rights augmentation plan for the operation. The Water Rights Augmentation Plan was filed in Water District Court 57 on June 23, 1995. This plan must be approved by the Water District Court prior to construction of the. sediment ponds and water use for mine related activities. On December 29, 1994, the Division received comments from the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). CNHP noted that there were four occurrences of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse near the proposed operation, and that the grouse was a "Category 2" species being considered for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. CNHP suggested that the Division contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Yoaz~ Mine 5 ruly 6, 1995