GENERAL36676 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Response to Comments Chapter 8 MOUNTAIN COAL ~~:~ COMPANYL.L.c. A Subsidiary of Arch Western Resources, u.c May 9, 2005 Ms. Liana Mattson Leasable Minerals Program Director GMUG Forests 2250 Hwy 50 Delta, Colorado 814 West Elk Mine Re: Mountain Coal Company's Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Dry Fork Federal Coal Lease by Application Ms. Mattson, Mountain Coal Company, L.L.C. (MCC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Drafr Envtrottmental Impact Statement completed for the Dry Fork LBA. The document is very well done but contains some information that MCC disagrees with. There is other information that MCC suggests be corrected, clarified, or revised. Most importantly, MCC encourages your consideration of all these comments prior to the decision being finalized on this project. As noted the document is very well done. Maxim and Forest Service staff contributing to the project should be commended. The document is clearly written, very amactive, and should effectively serve the purpose once fmalized. in a document of this nature information is often repeated in several locations within the document. For example the reasonably foreseeable mine plan is discussed in at least Chapters I and 2. If a revision is requested for Chapter 1, our request is that Chapter 2 and subsequent chapters and portions of the EIS 6e revised as well (introductory comment). Similarly, MCC requests the detailed comments below are applied throughout the document for consistency and correctness. MCC requests this of all comments made by other parties as well. MCC provides the following specific comments to the Dry Fork DEIS. (Paragraphs noted do not consider a paragraph continued from the previous page in the count for identification.) r Comment l: Paee S-1 ~ -Paagraph 1 (and throughout the document) refers to "ArkLand Company. Ark Land is two words. MCC requests that this be revised accordingly throughout the document. Comment 2: Page S-1 -Pazagraph 4 beginning with "The tract contains an estimated 17 million tons..." The paragraph goes onto state that West Elk operations calls for B and E Seam mining. MCC's p/ans do not agree with this reserve estimate and requests that this ~ estintale be qualified as a BLMestimale. The 17 million ton figure shows up repeatedly throughout the document and in the appendices. MCC also requests that the Language be revised to indicate that no B Seam mining is planned at this time although the analyses conducted allows jor, and considers that, multiple seom mining could occur. The document later on clarifies this much better but this injormatian is not correct as wrinen. 8-4 Dry Fork Lease-by-Application FEIS •