My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10255
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10255
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:26:40 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:09:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
10/27/1983
Doc Name
STATUS OF PN 79-177
From
MLRD
To
COLO YAMPA COAL CO
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />_11_ <br />In response to OSM stipulation 5, the applicant further evaluated the <br />need to create new watering areas for elk. They concluded that neither <br />surface or ground waters would be disrupted, all presently available <br />watering holes would be preserved, forage succulence is more than <br />adequate to supply water needs, snow is abundant in the area and that <br />there is no need to create new watering holes. This conclusion was based <br />on information from the OSM and CDOW. <br />Our records indicate that a response to OSM stipulation 6 was sent on <br />September 11, 1980, but the response could not be located. CYCC is <br />requested to resubmit the response. No response is required for OSM <br />stipulation 7 and it will remain in effect. <br />As part of the permit approval the applicant was required to conduct <br />yearly monitoring of macrophytes, fish and benthic invertebrates at <br />twelve sampling sites. After several years of collecting data this <br />monitoring has been terminated. The trends derived from the program <br />appeared to be related to the inherent stream variability rather than the <br />effects of coal mining. Also, CDOW felt the existing data was sufficient <br />and recommended that no further sampling be done. <br />Once the response to OSM stipulation 6 is resubmitted, this section will <br />be in compliance. <br />XI. Prime Farmland - Rules 2.04.12, 2.06.6 and 4.25 <br />There are no substantive differences between the Federal and State <br />permanent programs. <br />This section is in compliance. <br />XII. Operations Description - Rules 2.05.2, 2.05.3(1), 2.05.3(2), <br />There are no substantive differences between the Federal and State <br />permanent programs. The OSM attached the following four stipulations to <br />the approval package. <br />13. By December 21, 1980, the applicant shall submit an approvable <br />plan for proposed underground operations for that area located <br />adjacent to the shop facility and which are leased. If an <br />approvable plan is not submitted by December 31, 1980 backfilling <br />of the highwall shall commence by January 1, 1981 and shall be <br />completed by January 31, 1981, in accordance with map 48. <br />14. Faulted blocks of coal within the limits of the approved permit <br />area shall not be left unmined without the express written consent. <br />of the regulatory authority in consultation with the U.S. <br />Geological Survey (USGS) Area Mining Supervisor. When detailed <br />geologic information concerning these faulted areas is obtained <br />through the mining process, detailed information and plans shall be <br />submitted to the regulatory authority and the USGS Area Mining <br />Supervisor. A determination will then be made by the regulatory <br />authority about the economic feasibility of recovering the coal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.