2010-02-19_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2009087

Home Browse Search

Kaldenbach, Tom C Zoog o?? From: Pfannenstiel, Vernon R [VPfannenstiel@PeabodyEnergy.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:15 AM To: Kaldenbach, Tom Subject: RE: Draft right of entry doc Tom: Thanks for the feedback on the items below you noted in your email. We will do what needs to be done on the ROE document. The requirement to change the disturbance boundary where the waste rock disposal area was planned does not seem practical or follow the normal precedent at our other mines in our opinion. Disturbance boundaries are set to not only cover actual disturbance area but also to allow for some flexibility in moving things around or for future operational needs. For instance, at Seneca II-W and Yoast there are currently over400 acres and 170 acres, respectively, within the overall disturbance area for these two mines that are not disturbed. Even with the 55 acre area that enclosed the proposed waste rock area removed there will still be areas within the proposed disturbance area at Sage Creek which will not be disturbed. It is very likely that in the future a full design of the waste rock disposal area will be completed to the satisfaction of the regs and the Division and that will be the location. This is a part of that needed flexibility and planning. Further, this area will be bonded as a part of this PAP for topsoil replacement and reveg. Finally, there are over 92 maps that will need to be rerun with use of 3 rolls of paper, full set of ink cartridges and personnel resources. Besides the cost, the environmental issue of tossing that other material out is a consideration in light of is it actually necessary. In summary, we feel that leaving the boundary as is allows for future flexibility, follows a percent already in place at operating mines, and the disturbance area will be bonded as necessary. Thanks for considering this and for your timely response, Vern From: Kaldenbach, Tom [mailto:Tom.Kaldenbach@state.co.us] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:12 PM To: Pfannenstiel, Vernon R Subject: RE: Draft right of entry doc Vern, We have forwarded the draft ROE agreement to our contact in BLM to verify that it is acceptable. In the fifth paragraph of the draft should the word "Lessee's" be changed to "Operator's"? Regarding not changing the disturbance boundary in the waste rock area, I have been told you will need to change the boundary because the proposed activity on that part of the disturbed area is not specified in the permit application. Tom From: Pfannenstiel, Vernon R [mailto:VPfannenstiel@PeabodyEnergy.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:56 AM To: Kaldenbach, Tom Subject: Draft right of entry doc