Laserfiche WebLink
Pe_~I ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ee~ <br />PF.AlODY COAL COYPAMY <br />W~~t~m Dlrlsbn <br />1300 South VNs <br />Flag~t~H, Arirona 86001 <br />(602) 7746253 <br />February 23, 1990 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ <br />FFa ~ a ~ssa <br />Mr. Fred Banta, Director RECI-AMA7~'~~NC <br />Colorado Mined Land OIV aIV1S11~,i <br />Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RE: Request for Clarification of Definitions of Minor and <br />Technical Revisions <br />Dear Mr. Banta: <br />Since the issuance of the Seneca II and Seneca II-4J <br />permits, these operations have undergone <br />modifications, At various times, specific <br />changes (hydrologic control, topsoil stockpiles, <br />reclamation, etc.) have been declared technical <br />based on the relative complexity of the changes <br />Also, the Division has implemented the process <br />be an <br />effective mechanism for dealing with changes at the mine <br />level. A good example of this process was the recent <br />field minor revision at Seneca II-W which allowed for a <br />realignment of the A road during construction. <br />However, during the past year we have had several <br />disagreements with the Division concerning what type of <br />change to the approved permit package constitutes a <br />technical or a minor revision. The following examples <br />characterize these disagreements. <br />1. Stipulation 6 to the Seneca II-W permit required the <br />submittal of a water rights augmentation plan of the <br />Division. Peabody felt that such a submittal, by <br />itself, should be considered resolution to the <br />stipulation (similar to the requirement for an annual <br />hydrology report), if for no other reason than the <br />Division has no approval authority over the adequacy <br />of the augmentation plan (this is the sole authority <br />of the water rights courts) and it did not materially <br />change the permit document. However, the Division's <br />position was that, because this submittal was a <br />response to a stipulation, it had to be treated as a <br />technical revision to the permit application package. <br />several <br />types of <br />delay in <br />or minor <br />proposed. <br />of field <br />issuance of some minor revisions, which can <br />