Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />DIVISION OF WILDLIFE <br />AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER <br />Thomas E. Remington, Director <br />6060 Broadway <br />Denver, Colorado 80216 <br />Telephone: (303) 297-1192 <br />wildlife. state. co. us <br />Northwest Region Service Center <br />711 Independent Avenue <br />Grand Junction, CO 81505 <br />Telephone: (970) 255-6100 <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety <br />Attn.: Mr. Michael P. Boulay <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado -80203 - <br />Dear Mr. Boulay, <br /> <br />For Wildlife- <br />For People <br />OECEIVE p <br />AUG 2 a 2008 <br />AlWai n%Wo08 <br />Mining ana la et feat ion, <br />The Colorado Division of Wildlife has reviewed the information you forwarded detailing the operator's <br />response to our comments dated January 25, 2008 concerning the McClave Canyon coal mine TR-16 <br />application. As you may recall, most of our concerns focused on potential water quality impacts to East <br />Salt Creek due to the discharge of untreated mine water and gob pile leachate into the East Salt Creek <br />drainage, where it will be.available,to wildlife. We also recommended lining of the sediment pond, <br />fencing of the pond to deter wildlife use,' and including provisions for escapement of wildlife that enter <br />the pond. <br />In their response, CAM Mining, LLC agreed to realign the sediment pond fence and provide a 5:1 ramp <br />for escapement of wildlife. We view those changes as positive for wildlife. <br />CAM's response also stated that, while it believes "it is in the interest of everyone that the water <br />discharged into East Salt Creek be of the highest standard possible", it does not believe the pond needed <br />to' be lined. CAM noted that the previous McClane mine sediment pond, which was much smaller in <br />size and probably handled a much smaller volume of water (and none of the leachate associated with the <br />Munger Canyon gob), was not required to be lined. They add that the nearby Munger Canyon mine also <br />had an unlined sediment pond that discharged into the usually dry Munger Creek drainage. CAM cites a <br />concept it describes as "past accepted precedence" to support its view that the McClane pond should not <br />be lined. We note that both the McClane and Munger Canyon mines were permitted many decades ago, <br />when environmental standards were much different than they are today. We believe that adherence to <br />current environmental standards and best management practices will better protect wildlife and the water <br />they are so dependent upon. <br />CAM also states that the mine water and gob pile leachate to be discharged as surface water into East <br />Salt Creek will notdegrade, and will instead improve, the water quality. They include hydrologic <br />references that contrast the conductivity/salinity of mine water discharge with that of a nearby surface <br />well (S W-1) and ground well (GW71) during the irrigation season. By adding better poor quality water <br />to worse poor quality water, CAM postitlates that they will' actually_be'improvirig overall water quality. <br />As'stated in our January comments, we believe the addition of mine.water-and'gob leachate with <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hams D. Sherman, Executive Director <br />WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Robert Bray, Chair • Brad Coors, Vice Chair • Tim Glenn, Secretary <br />Members, Dennis Buechler • Jeffrey Crawford • Dorothea Farris • Roy McAnally • Richard Ray • Robert Streeter <br />Ex Officio Members, Hams Sherman and John Stulp