Laserfiche WebLink
Stipulation No. 61 <br /> THE DISTURBANCE PROPOSED FOR PERMIT REVISION NO. 7 SHALL NOT BEGIN UNTIL.THE <br /> DIVISION HAS RECEIVED UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONCURRENCE <br /> FOR THIS PROJECT. <br /> STATUS: Complied with 5/30/97. <br /> Simulation No. 62 <br /> THE DISTURBANCE PROPOSED FOR PERMIT REVISION NO. 7 SHALL NOT BEGIN UNIL <br /> MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY PROVIDES DOCUMENTATION WHICH VERIFIES THAT THE <br /> UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE DOES NOT MANAGE ANY LANDS WITHIN THE PROPOSED <br /> DISTURBED AREA ASSOCIATED WITH PERMIT REVISION NO. 7. <br /> STATUS: Complied with 5/12/97. <br /> Summary <br /> The Review Process <br /> Mountain Coal Company, formerly the West Elk Coal Company, applied on <br /> November 6, 1979 for a permit to conduct underground mining and reclamation operations at <br /> the West Elk Mine, formerly the Mt. Gunnison No. 1 Mine. <br /> The application was determined to be complete on November 29, 1979. The first review <br /> comments from the Division of Water Resources were received on March 26, 1980, and <br /> comments from the Division of Wildlife were received on April 22, 1980. During the latter <br /> part of June, the Division received OSM's Apparent Completeness Review of the application, <br /> which was subsequently incorporated into the July MLRD Preliminary Adequacy Review <br /> Letter and them forwarded to the company. On January 13, 1981, a meeting was held between <br /> OSM and MLRD to assess the adequacy of MCC's responses, and it was at this point in time <br /> that the responses were found to be substantially inadequate in a variety of aspects. This <br /> resulted in a decision to prepare a second, joint adequacy letter which was sent to the company <br /> on February 6, 1981. <br /> On January 30, 1981 the Division received additional comments from the Division of Water <br /> Resources which outlined the deficiencies in the application with regard to water rights and, in <br /> particular, with the deficiencies of the proposed Minnesota Creek Basin Augmentation Plan. <br /> Additional comments on water rights issues were submitted in February and March in the form <br /> of objection letters from several concerned citizens. These letters also discussed problems <br /> relating to alluvial valley floors, protection for perennial streams, the potential for landslides to <br /> be triggered by subsidence, cumulative hydrologic impacts, the adequacy of MCC's subsidence <br /> monitoring and subsidence control plans, and a number of procedural issues. These objections <br /> 4 <br />