Laserfiche WebLink
Interoffice Memo <br />To: Tom Kaldenbach <br />From: Janet Binns J <br />Date: February 2, 2 <br />RE: Permit application adequacy responses, Peabody Sage Creek Mine, C2009-087 <br />Cc: Dan Hernandez <br />Peabody Sage Creek Mine Review: C2009-087 <br />On January 21, 2010, Peabody Sage Creek Mine provided responses to the Division's Adequacy letter, dated <br />July 31, 2009. This memo serves to document whether or not the adequacy responses are in compliance <br />with the Division's concerns. The name of the operator, Peabody Sage Creek Coal Company, has been <br />abbreviated PSCCC. I have repeated the original adequacy question and the associated number from the <br />Division's adequacy letter. My review of SCCC's responses is in red font. Only items 16c) i) and iii) need <br />additional information from the operator at this time. <br />15) On page 2.04-123, SCCC adds "Yoast Haul Road Corridor-Improved Pasture/CRP" to <br />Table 2.04.10-T5 along with the Mountain Brush and the Sagebrush reference areas. This is the first <br />indication of a road corridor-Improved Pasture/CRP reference area. A road corridor-Improved <br />Pasture/CRP reference area is not depicted on Map 2.04.10-M1. Is SCCC adding a third reference <br />area? There is no discussion of the condition of this reference area or its application to reclaimed <br />areas at PSCM. Please provide additional discussion, location and application of the Road Corridor- <br />Improved Pasture/CRP reference area. <br />Table 2.05.4-T4 only includes two reference areas; Mountain Brush reference area and Sagebrush <br />reference area. Please keep all tables regarding references areas consistent throughout the PAP. <br />Will there be two or three reference areas? <br />TCC's addition of an explanatory comment on Table 2.04.10-T5, revised page 2.04-145 (6/15/2009), is <br />acceptable. <br />35) The text explains that, due to sampling for the baseline data later in the growing season in 2008, <br />SCCC would conduct additional sampling earlier in the growing season in 2009 for potential T&E or <br />sensitive species that may have senesced by mid-July. Did SCCC conducted this additional sampling in <br />early spring 2009? Please supply DRMS with results of the 2009 sampling effort. <br />SCCC conducted a vegetation sampling in May and June 2009, with results reported in Exhibit <br />2.04.10-E1(12/17/2009). None of the additional species identified during the 2009 Spring survey <br />were considered threatened or endangered, or species of special interest. Although fpomopsis <br />aggregatto (Scarlet gilia) was identified during the Spring 2009 sampling, it was not identified as var.