PERMFILE134363 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~ September 12, 2006 Page 2 of 8 • CAM will work with Western Colorado Community College to develop a training program for miners. Other Permits -See Attachment 3 • Jim Stover discussed the mining plan that must be approved by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and the State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. Ron Singh (OSM) added that the mining plan needs to be approved by the Asst. Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management and that it would address NEPA compliance, compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the Endangered Species Act, and an approved Resource Recovery and Protection Plan (R2P2). The key to the application is the Reclamation Plan approved by the State. • Dan Mathews (State Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety) said that under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), the state has primacy to regulate coal mining and the state issues a mining and reclamation permit. The state will present the plan to the public for comment and will require a reclamation bond for the state to complete all reclamation required by the mining-related disturbance. • The Secretazy of the Interior (delegated) must approve a mining plan for all leased federal coal. If this EIS examines potential impacts for areas that will be leased in the future, OSM, as a cooperating agency, would not have to conduct additional NEPA compliance. ~' • For Section 404 permitting, Mark Gilfillan (Corps of Engineers) said that the USACE is still regulating jurisdictional wetlands and ephemeral drainages as waters of the US. Ronda Sandquist stated that CAM has greatly reduced wetlands impacts with a railroad realignment, and that currently there would be minimal impacts at Mack Wash and with a water intake in Salt Wash. There has been no jurisdictional determination regarding these wetlands. • Regarding the 404(b)(1) requirements for inclusion in the EIS, Mark said that if no individua1404 permits were required, following these requirements would not bean issue in the EIS. However, even with minimal or no jurisdictional wetlands impacts, we still need to consider the impacts to the ephemeral drainages in the azea where the waste rock will be dumped. If there is hydrologic connectivity, it's status quo with the regulations. Mike Klish stated that there were more than SOO lineaz feet of bed ' and bank ephemeral drainages -Mark said that he would have io get a request for a jurisdictional determination. • Dan Mathews reminded us that the State (Water Quality Division) would also require a permit application fora 401 water quality permit. CAM will need a stormwater management plan during railroad construction. • Regarding water discharge from the mine, Jim Stover said that it was unlikely; that it would be a "dry mine." ~ • Mesa and Garfield counties will require conditional use permits. Kurt Larsen (Mesa County) said that the County Commission would review site plans and hold a public heazing. CAM would need to resolve any code violations prior to receiving the permit. Pete Baier (Mesa County) is concerned with the skewed traffic and railroad crossings - he would prefer to see them at 90 degrees. The county is OK with road upgrades - they would need a maintenance agreement with CAM. CAM may continue to truck ''