Laserfiche WebLink
Brown, Sandy <br />From: Brown, Sandy <br />Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 3:32 PM <br />To: 'Karo, Roy; Mathews, Dan; Dunfee, Brian P.; Pfannenstiel, Vernon R; Nettleton, Jerry; <br />Yingling, Mark; Ludlow, Mike <br />Cc: James, Jay; Belden, Scott <br />Subject: RE: Seneca II Mine TR 48 Incidental Permit Boundary Revision Deficiencies <br />Roy, <br />As we discussed this morning, this boundary modification is a bit unusual. Over 3000 acres of the Seneca II permit <br />boundary are requested to be transferred to the proposed Sage Creek Mine permit. Questions over timing and the type <br />of revision this is considered are pertinent. The timing issue has to do with the sequencing of permitting actions. The <br />Seneca II revision cannot be approved until after the Sage Creek Mine permit is issued. The permit will be issued after <br />the Sage Creek reclamation bond has been accepted by the Division and after the completion of the public comment <br />period following the Division's proposed decision for the new permit. Most likely, that date will range anywhere from <br />six months to a year from now. The question of when to submit the Seneca II revision is up to Seneca Coal Company, <br />but the Division will not propose a decision until after the Sage Creek permit is issued. <br />This proposed revision does not fall clearly into any of the revision categories, and the Division prefers to take a <br />conservative approach. A 3015 acre reduction in the permit area of the Seneca II Mine is well beyond the scope of an <br />incidental boundary revision. This large acreage reduction is a significant alteration to the permit area, the area of <br />reclamation and the associated liability. Therefore, the Division requests that the revision be submitted as a permit <br />revision rather than a technical revision. <br />The contents of the permit revision will be essentially the same as what has already been submitted. However, the <br />requirements of Rule 2.03.6(1) have not been addressed regarding the updated legal description and access to the <br />revised Seneca II Mine permit boundary. This information will be necessary in the application along with the two items <br />Dan Mathews provided in his June 26, 2009 letter. It would also be helpful to include a discussion of the permit area <br />reduction in your summary of revisions. <br />If this answers your questions, no further meetings are necessary at this time. If you do have questions, please call me. <br />Sandy B <br />Sandra L. Brown <br />Senior Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />303-866-3567 x 8110 <br />From: Karo, Roy [mailto:RKaro@PeabodyEnergy.com] <br />Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:40 AM <br />To: Mathews, Dan; Brown, Sandy; Dunfee, Brian P.; Pfannenstiel, Vernon R; Nettleton, Jerry; Yingling, Mark; Ludlow, <br />Mike <br />Cc: James, Jay; Belden, Scott <br />Subject: Seneca II Mine TR 48 Incidental Permit Boundary Revision Deficiencies <br />Dan,