Laserfiche WebLink
l;omment <br />• "The discussion of the Hughes injunction should also state that <br />the injunction limiting,ieases to production as or' September 27, <br />1977 may be removed by the Secretary upon his compliance with <br />the court order. This should be coupled with a discussion of <br />the possibility that, as Cb!I has indicated to the Department, <br />C4:I can seek to expand production r"rom the mine to 1.25 million <br />Mons per year as soon as the H~nhes order has been complied <br />with by the Secretary, The discussion of C41I's operation <br />should include a discussion about both ";IPSCO contracts and the <br />reason why Cb!I may not at this point mine coal r""rom the Orchard <br />Valley i•tine to satisfy the second NIPSCO contract." <br />Response <br />These comments, which were submitted by C4!I, are noted. The <br />short-term lease application submitted by CWI (C-27432) was <br />submitted and is being processed under the criteria established <br />by the June 14, 1978 amended order of NP,DC vs Hughes. Because <br />the second contract which CI!I obtained from NI PS CJ does no. <br />meet the criteria, it is outside the scope of leasing allowed <br />under the June 14, 1978 amended order. In the event that the <br />court order is lifted and a new federal coal leasing program is <br />• implemented that would permit the expanded production, then the <br />need for additional assessment on that production level can be <br />considered. <br />Chapter 1 <br />Comment <br />"The projected production figures for 1985 are almost t~,vice the <br />production rate identified in Chapter 8 of the 4!est-Central En- <br />virormental Statement. Y!hy the inconsistency? In addition, <br />the accuracy of the projections should be checked." <br /> <br />