GENERAL39133 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PEABODY COAL COMPANY Rooky Mounfaln Dlvlalon February 25, 1986 Mr. Fred Banta Coal Program Supervisor Mined Land Reclamation Division Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 RE: SENECA II-W, PERMIT N0. C-057-82 Dear Fred: III Ililllllllllllll 999 10375 East Harvartl Avenue Suite 400 Denver, Coloretlo 80231 (303) 337-5903 .rg~ Y- `~~' ~~g 2 5198fi .,~ ;,~~',-":ASV B,1T~ r~~•' `s ~~ ,,. As you discussed with Jim Lunan last week, there has been some confusion over our signing of the Seneca II-W permit issued to us on October 14, 1985. As was explained, part of our reluctance to "rush" into signing was some of the time frames for satisfying specific stipulations which become effective upon signing. Since we did not have the time to devote to the stipulations, we just delayed signing. After our conversation last week, we took a look at the time frames of these stipulations to see what we could handle at this time. It is my understanding that once Peabody and CMLR can reach agreement on these revised time frames for permit stipulation response, then Peabody will sign the permit and immediately submit a minor revision modifying the stipulation time frames in accordance with our agreement. Following is a discussion, by stipulation, of how we can respond. Stipulation I -This was resolved on September 19, 1985. Stipulations 2, 3, and 4 -The water monitoring at Il-W has been uninterrupted since the permit was issued. We do have some disagreement with the scope of work mandated in Stipulations 2 and 3. It is Peabody's intent to submit a revised monitoring plan, including the spoils monitoring program required by Stipulation 4, within 60 days of permit issuance. Stipulation 5 -This is a reporting stipulation which will be complied with. Stipulation 6 -This stipulation requires measures to be taken to protect water rights which may be adversely affected by mining. The water rights issue for the production well is still being debated with the Stare Engineer. However, 1 don't think there is any problem with water control along the tie-across haul road. Therefore, we propose to eliminate The 60-day time frame for stipulation response. We also propose that the stipulation response be submitted prior to any disturbance along the access road and mining area. Since there is no question along the tie-across road, this change would allow us the flexibility to begin construction, at the earliest possible time.