Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Steven G. Renner <br />2 <br />Grand Mesa a copy of its five-year mine plan projections, entered into a <br />consent agreement with Grand Mesa to enter surface lands to monitor the <br />effects of undermining and obtained a letter from Grand Mesa stating that it <br />had received adequate notice of undermining through its previous <br />correspondence with MCC. <br />Documentation was also provided to demonstrate that the USFS effectively <br />was notified by MCC of its plan to initiate mining under USFS property. This <br />included three letters from the USFS to our Western Support Center, one <br />commenting and concurring with MCC's plans to conduct subsidence <br />monitoring on USFS land and two requests to extend the boundaries of its <br />five-year mine plan on USFS land. Finally, as in the case of Grand Mesa, the <br />USFS provided a letter to MCC after issuance of the TDN stating its <br />satisfaction with the notice provided to them by MCC through previous <br />correspondence. <br />The documents you provided substantiate that both property owners had <br />general knowledge that undermining activities were commencing. In <br />addition, letters from the landowners after issuance of the TDN underscore <br />their overall satisfaction with the manner in which they were notified. While <br />I understand the AFO's position in expecting that the notice required under <br />your regulations be specific, timely and contained in a single document, as I <br />trust you will ensure in the future, I conclude in the instant case, that <br />constructive notice was provided to both landowners and thus there is no <br />need for further Federal intervention in this matter. <br />Sincerely, <br />Ed Kay <br />Acting Deputy Director <br />