Laserfiche WebLink
Kiowa Clay Mine, M-2007-009 <br />Response to Adequacy Comments <br />17 April 2007 <br />Page 11 <br />and sediment or stormwater control structures are located so the Division <br />can calculate the cost to reclaim such structures. <br />This Comment assumes that the applicant has been required to submit a SWMP <br />to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. A Colorado Discharge <br />Permit System (CDPS) approval will be required for the proposed operation, and <br />it is undisputed that a SWMP will be prepared for the CDPS permit. However, <br />the CDPS permit is typically applied for following the approval of the Reclamation <br />Permit. This standard practice is based on both the shorter review cycle and the <br />nature of discharge permits. It is generally appropriate to apply for a CDPS <br />permit up to -180 days prior to the commencement of operations; this <br />applicant/operator is committed to applying for all required CDPHE permits and <br />will do so at the appropriate time prior to the commencement of operations. <br />The SPCC plan is an artifact of federal regulation. According to precedent, the <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety does not review SPCC plans. The <br />EPA requires SPCC plans on certain operations, with certain types of <br />containment devices, holding certain kinds of materials. The applicability of <br />SPCC regulations to the proposed Kiowa Clay Mine operation is unclear. At this <br />time, it is believed that the only potential trigger of SPCC regulations, the diesel <br />fuel tank, would be below the capacity that triggers an SPCC plan. If the <br />requisite circumstances arise, the operator will prepare and keep a record of an <br />SPCC plan. <br />f8. Section (7)(d) requires the Applicant/Operator to include a description <br />of the general effect during and after the proposed operation on the <br />existing wildlife of the area, including but not limited to temporary and <br />permanent loss of food and habitat, interference with migratory routes, <br />and the general effect on the wildlife form increased human activity, <br />including noise. Please include the above requested information regarding <br />the operation's effect on wildlife at the site. <br />Wildlife in the area includes elk, mule deer, birds, coyotes, pronghorn antelope, <br />swift fox, and other common plains species. Elk and mule deer are large <br />ungulate grazers, important to social and economic functions of local <br />communities. Both of these species serve as "umbrella species," which means <br />that if habitat requirements to meet the needs of these species are present, then <br />we can safely assume that many other species will also be adequately supported <br />(Caro & O'Doherty 1999, Lambeck 1997, Roberge & Angelstam 2004). <br />Elk and mule deer have the potential to use the area, based on general habitat <br />characteristics, but there is no mapped summer range, production areas, <br />migration corridors, winter concentration areas, nor severe winter range mapped <br />on or near the Property. The property does not receive significant use by these <br />