Laserfiche WebLink
response indicates that ? copy of the Emission permit applicatian ? attached to <br />the submittal, but could not be found in the submittal copy reviewed. Please <br />submit ? capy of the referenced ea?.ission permit application. <br />5?. The Division requested the operator to address the concern identified by QOM <br />regarding possible impact ofproposed disturbance on the threatened Uinta Basin <br />haakless cactus ?S???r?ocac??s g?a?c??s}. In respa?se, the operator submitted a <br />brief apinion letter addendum to Table 4.-I Q, prepared by Rare Earth science, <br />the consultant wha prepared the ?OQ6 Draft Biological Assessment for the <br />McClane canyon Mine permit renewal. The apiion letter supports the <br />conclusion of the ??Q? report, namely that no impact would occur to the subject <br />cactus species, due to lack of documented occurrences v??thln several n?lles of?the <br />mine and lack of suitable habitat v?ithin the area ofpraposed disturbance East <br />halt creek terrace v?ith dense big sagebruhlgreasewood shrubland vegetation}. <br />item tenta#ivel resolved• res onse will be forwarded to 14? for their <br />review and consideration with res ct to re oration of the biolo ical <br />assessrr?ent. <br />S2. The Colorado Di?ris?an ofrldl?fe ?D?} had previously commented on aspects <br />of the TR-1 ? plan, with. comments focusing prirr?arily an water quality impacts <br />associated with proposed waste pile and associated sediment pond <br />dischargelleachate. CAM's most recent submittal included responses to the <br />original D??V concerns, v?hich DDS has revieured and cam?nented a?a in a letter <br />dated August 1, 2Q08, received by the Division on ,August ?, 2QQ?. ?? <br />continues to have concerns related to patcntial water quality impacts of the <br />proposed activities to East halt creek. A copy of Dl's August 19, ?aQ? reviev? <br />letter is enclosed. Please review and respond to the concerns identified by <br />l]??V. A meeting including appropriate SAM, ??w, and Dl?1VI personnel <br />may be helpful to resolve these concerns, Please let us know if you would like <br />us to schedule such meeting to assYSt in preparation of a response submittal <br />that will be acceptable to DOw and the Division. <br />?7. MPB to address??? Does D?' raise valid points, ar vas CAM's amended p?C <br />analysis sufficient to conclude that contribution of leachate contaminants from <br />proposed waste disposal site andlor new sediment pond would be insignificant. <br />Need fox modified monitoring plan site locations andlor parameters, and need far <br />pond liner??? Need far meeting with D?'I?AM to resolve these issues anal <br />. <br />Item 2 issues. , . <br />c. The Division requested that the operator provide clarification regarding disturbed <br />acreage on the East halt creek allu?rial valley floor. The requested clarification <br />eras provided within amended text on revised pages ?-? and 4-7, and revised rnap <br />Figure 4.1 ?, item resolved. <br />'?Mil?e, given ?rour interest and expertise ?n drainage design details, you nay v?ant to look <br />at lte?n ? 5 concern and response, and confirm that it was addressed to your satisfaction. <br />3