My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1981-08-20_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981038
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981038
>
1981-08-20_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981038
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/5/2020 8:56:39 AM
Creation date
8/8/2012 9:04:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981038
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
8/20/1981
Doc Name
Proposed Decision & Findings
From
DRMS
To
Colorado Westmoreland, Inc
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
Email Name
BFB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
i <br /> NRDC Y. Hughes provisions. Therefore; the stipulation may be <br /> removed by mutual consent. <br /> CWI has stated to the BLM that it intends to produce coal at a rate <br /> of 1.3 million tons per year. CWI has valid existing contracts for <br /> 1.3 million tons of coal per year which were in existence prior to <br /> the effective date of the new 43 CFR Part 3400 regulations. The <br /> BLM has no statutory authority to require a fixed rate of pro- <br /> duction on existing coal leases. BLM issues coal leases that <br /> contain a quantified amount of recoverable coal . Should the <br /> Special Stipulation 30c be removed from the Lease C-27432, the BLM <br /> will no longer have authority to control any rate of production <br /> from the lease. <br /> The BLM has used the stated production rate of 1.3 million tons per <br /> year for purposes of quantification in this EA. The actual pro- <br /> duction rate would be subject to the approval of the Office of <br /> Surface Mining in their review of a modified Mining Plan. <br /> Response, Comment 7 <br /> Table 3 and the text have been revised to reflect this updated <br /> information. <br /> Response, Comment 8 <br /> It is true that additions to existing facilities are not built for <br /> each incremental increase in population. What actually happens is <br /> that the quality of the service would decrease until a point is <br /> reached at which the level of service becomes unacceptable and new <br /> facilities are required. An analysis beyond the scope of the EA <br /> would be required to determine these levels for each of the services <br /> analyzed. The analysis in the EA shows the share of new facilities <br /> that could be attributed to the proposed action when new facilities <br /> are required. <br /> Response, Comment 9 <br /> See Response, Comment 8. <br /> Response, Comments 10 through 16 <br /> See Response, Comment 7. <br /> Response, Comment 17 <br /> The analysis in the EA was based on CWI's estimate of the numbers <br /> of new employees and their source. Also presented was an analysis <br /> of the impacts that would occur if all the new employees came from <br /> outside the economic area of Delta County and the North Fork <br /> Valley. In light of the comments received from the governments and <br /> individuals that would be affected by the proposal , it is apparent <br /> that the actual impacts would be closest to the analysis results <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.