Laserfiche WebLink
application was sent to required entities (per Rule 2.7.3(3)(b)) the same day. A public notice of the <br />application was published in the Hayden Valle Press once a week for four consecutive weeks <br />beginning December I5, 1994. <br />The Division transmitted preliminary adequacy review letters on January '20 and 23, 1995. <br />On February 24, ]995, the Division requested compliance information from all other coal mining <br />regulatory agencies in which the applicant and its controllers operate, to determine whether those <br />entities had any unabated violations, cessation orders, or unpaid civil penalties. No other regulatory <br />agency reported any of these permit conditions. <br />The Division queried the Applicant Violator System (AVS) on December 19, 1994 to obtain a <br />recommendation for approval of the permit application based on the applicant and its owners' and <br />controllers' compliance record. The system recommended the application be denied since Seneca <br />Coal Company was linked to an allegedly unpaid federal civil penalty, a state issued cessation order, <br />and unpaid Abandoned Mined Land (AML) fees. A follow up recommendation by the OSM on <br />December 20, 1994, was that the permit could be conditionally issued since the aforementioned <br />problems were in the process of resolution. On June 28, 1995, the Division queried the AVS. The <br />system again recommended the application be denied due to 5 West Virginia AML violations and <br />1 West Virginia Audit violation. A follow up recommendation by the OSM on June 28, 1995 <br />overturned the system recommendation to issue because Peabody paid its share of the AML and <br />Audit debt noted in AVS. The final AVS check will be conducted prior to issuance of the permit. <br />During the review, the Division received a number of comments on the application. A summary of <br />those comments and their resolution follows. <br />On December 5, 1994, the Division received comments from the Division of Water Resources, <br />Office of the State Engineer. The Office requested additional information regarding the water rights <br />augmentation plan for the operation. The Water Rights Augmentation Plan was filed in Water <br />District Court 57 on June 23, 1995. This plan must be approved by the Water District Court prior <br />to construction of the sediment ponds and water use for mine related activities. <br />On December 29, 1994, the Division received comments from the Colorado Natural Heritage <br />Program (CNHP). CNHP noted that there were four occurrences of the Columbian sharp-tailed <br />grouse neaz the proposed operation, and that the grouse was a "Category Z" species being considered <br />for federal protection tinder the Endangered Species Act. CNHP suggested that the Division contact <br />the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Division had contacted the Service on November 21, 1994, <br />and subsequently received comments. <br />The Division received comments from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)on January 3 <br />and March 8, 1995. USFWS concerns regarding the proposed mine operations included potential <br />impacts to endangered species of fish due to water depletion in the Colorado River basin, potential <br />impacts to raptors on the mine site, the need for continued monitoring for the presence of a number <br />of endangered species at the mine site, and a number of recommendations regarding the operation <br />Yoast Mir 7 Much 6. ?001 <br />