Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />.. _... <br />1D. • <br />Division of Minerals and Geology t0 ddd the 425-acre Proposed <br />PACE e/30 <br />Mining Area co its existing state mining permit. Defendant DOE <br />prepared comments on the state permit application. <br />25. In conjunction with those cormnents, Defendan[ DOE's <br />contractor, EG&G, studied the ecological sensitivity of the <br />Proposed Mining Rrea and concluded that the mine expansion will <br />result in significant impacts to the mouse habitat, native <br />plants, and surrounding ecosystem. <br />26. In May of 1994, WAI applied for a rezoning or special <br />use ?xrmit with the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. <br />Defendant DOE was ac[ively involved in the rezoning process. On <br />numc~~us occasions, Defendant DOE voiced its concerns about the <br />mine expansion directly to the County. IJUring 1494 and 1995, <br />Defendant DOE, WAI, and [he County had extensive discussions and <br />meetings about the mine expansion and rezoning application. The <br />County required that DOE and WAI enter into a written agreement <br />concerning the impacts of the proposed mining to the Buffer Zone. <br />As a ::exult, DOE and WAI drafted a modified version of the 1991 <br />^Accet;s and Surface ore Agreement." <br />~~7. WAI changed its rezoning application on February 7, <br />1995 to reflect Defendant DOE's comments. <br />28. On April 25, 1995, Defendant DOE sent the County a <br />letter outlining its "major concerns,' requesting tha[ WAS <br />'consult with the surface owner" on a number of issues. On July <br />26, 1995, DOE and WAI executed a Memorandum of Agreement where <br />DOE agceed not to contest WAI's rezoning application. On June <br />S~mnd Ammdcd Complain <br />8 <br />