My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-06-02_REVISION - C1980007
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2008-06-02_REVISION - C1980007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:32:18 PM
Creation date
11/20/2008 11:51:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
6/2/2008
Doc Name
Letter on Appeal of March 14, 2008 Decision of Forest Service
From
USFS
To
Earthjustice
Type & Sequence
TR111
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
K Appellants <br />4 <br />"consent" to the use and occupancy of NFS lands, rather than his "concurrence" he fulfilled the <br />statutory limit of his obligation by also identifying in his decision conditions required for the use <br />and occupancy of NFS land and needed to protect the non-mineral interest in those lands in <br />conjunction with installation of the proposed MDW's. The identification of such conditions was <br />the extent of the federal action represented by his decision. The Assistant Secretary of the <br />Interior for Lands and Minerals, through the OSM, will now have the authority and responsibility <br />to evaluate and approve (or otherwise) the installation of the MDW's through modifications to <br />the existing mine plan for the West Elk Mine. None of the issues brought forth by the appellants <br />were directed at the decision to authorize changes in certain lease stipulations and to authorize <br />the construction, reconstruction and use of certain Forest Service roads and trails necessary for <br />the installation of the proposed methane drainage wells. <br />RECOMENDATION: That the Forest Supervisor be affirmed and that the Appeal <br />Deciding officer provide clarification that concurring with action to be considered <br />and decided upon by another federal agency, is not a Forest Service federal action. <br />/s/ Robert J. Leaverton <br />Robert J Leaverton <br />Appeal Reviewing Officer
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.