GENERAL43970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

valley floor. USFWS contended that declassification would mean that the valley floor would not be classified as cropland, and that P&M would not have to be held accountable for coal mining effluent impacts to the valley. The letter also asserted that P&M should be held accountable for potential contamination created by their coal mining activities. The Division responded to the letter on January 15, 1993, informing the USFWS of existing revegetation success and water quality standards with which P&M is required to comply. The letter stated that if the revision were approved, P&M would still be required to meet success standards of 47% vegetative cover on the Center Ridge pond embankment, and 90% of the approved reference area vegetative cover on the West Ridge pond embankment. The response also stated that P&M would remain responsible for ensuring continued compliance with receiving stream standards, but would not be responsible for restoring the essential hydrologic function of the Oak Creek alluvial valley floor. No further comments or objections were received from the USFWS. On January 11, 1993, a representative of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) telephoned the Division and requested a copy of the revision submittal. Copies of the submittal and subsequent correspondence were forwarded to the USAGE, but the Division received no additional comments or objections. No other comments or objections were received. Applicant Violator System Queries The applicant violator system (AVS) was queried on March 1, 1994. In regard to compliance history, the recommendation of the system was to issue this permit revision. A follow up recommendation from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) on March 9, 1994 was to issue the permit revision. The system was again queried on May 2, 1994, resulting in another recommendation to issue the revision. The follow up OSMRE recommendation was also an issue recommendation. Division Adequacy Review and Timeframes On January 14, 1993, the Division forwarded adequacy concerns with the submittal to P&M. P&M's responses were received on September 13, 1993 and January 18, 1994. The Division reviewed those responses, and transmitted additional concerns on January 25, 1994. P&M responded on April 22, 1994. All adequacy concerns have now been resolved. Therefore, the Division proposes to approve the revision application with stipulations, as previously stated. Publication of this proposed decision initiates a thirty day public comment period. Provided there are no objections to the decision, it becomes final at the close of the comment period. E na me 5 ermit Rev~s~on o. 3