Laserfiche WebLink
July 17, 1997—Notices of availability for review and request for comments provided to Mesa County <br /> Planning Department, Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS), Bureau of Land Management <br /> (BLM), Office of Surface Mining(OSM), Colorado Natural Heritage Inventory, U.S. Army Corps of <br /> Engineers (Army Corps), Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Dept. of Health/Water Quality <br /> Control Division (CDOH),Colorado Division of Water Resources,State Board of Land Commissioners, <br /> Mesa County Commissioners,Colorado Historical Society/State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO), <br /> and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). <br /> August 19, 1997—DMG received letter from Army Corps stating that a Dept. of Army permit would <br /> be required prior to commencement of any excavation or discharge of dredged or fill material into <br /> streams,lakes,or wetlands. This letter was forwarded to the operator on September 12, 1997. A DMG <br /> letter of February 6, 1998 to the Army Corps, clarified the Division's understanding regarding <br /> proposed future disturbances,which would require an Army Corps permit. <br /> January 7, 1998—BLM notified DMG of a proposed re-route of the Colorado Gas Transmission Project <br /> Pipeline,which would result in a portion of the pipeline route being located over portions of the South <br /> Portals portion of the permit area approved to be undermined in the future. DMG responded to the <br /> BLM notification in a letter of January 9, 1998,which was copied to the operator. The letter indicated <br /> that PCC would be required to amend the permit to address measures to demonstrate that material <br /> damage due to subsidence would not occur, and to specify that the gas company would be notified 6 <br /> months prior to undermining of the pipeline. These provisions were subsequently incorporated into <br /> the permit. <br /> February 12, 1998--DMG received a letter from the SHPO,indicating that there would be no effect to <br /> cultural resources as a result of the proposed renewal. <br /> February 12, 1998—DMG's initial adequacy review letter was forwarded to PCC,and copied to BLM. <br /> Items of concern included necessary updates to the legal and financial section of the permit,clarification <br /> of the revegetation monitoring plan and the need for baseline vegetation data for proposed CRDA-3 <br /> disturbance,clarification regarding riparian area reclamation,need for mine plan update,amendment <br /> to subsidence protection plans, sediment and drainage control plan modifications, and questions <br /> concerning postmine hydrologic conditions and adequacy of proposed seals and drains. The Division <br /> also forwarded an amended reclamation cost estimate, indicating that reclamation liability exceeded <br /> the current bond amount by 51,804.00. <br /> June 25, 1998—DMG received PCC's preliminary response to DMG review letter of February 12. A <br /> number of the issues were not substantively addressed in the submittal. A bond rider increasing the <br /> existing surety amount by 52,000.00 was included with the submittal. <br /> July 10, 1998 through March 20, 1999—DMG received remaining substantive responses to the <br /> February 12, 1998 adequacy review letter. <br /> April 9, 1999—DMG received bond rider modified to include OSM as obligee. <br /> April 14, 1999—DMG sent a second adequacy review letter to PCC. DMG requested further <br /> modification to a number of the amendments submitted by PCC in their various adequacy response <br /> submittals. <br /> 11 <br />