Laserfiche WebLink
C1982056, RN5, Adequacy Review 4 1/16/2009 <br />11. Review of Reclamation Success determination on page 2.05-115 finds TCC refers to three <br />reference areas, as shown on Map 18. Review of Map 18 and 18A only located two of the <br />reference areas; R2 (Pasture reference) and R3 (Sagebrush reference). Please direct the Division <br />to the location of the third reference area. Since R2 and R3 are located outside of the Foidel <br />Creek permit area boundary, TCC needs to demonstrate that it still maintains control over the <br />management of the reference areas. (Rule 4.15.7(3)(b)) <br />12. The Foidel Creek permit needs to state what defines reclamation success for reclaimed sites. <br />Currently Pages 2.05-116 through 2.05-117 allude to meeting or exceeding cover, production <br />and density, without actually stating what defines success. Please clearly define what TCC <br />proposes as reclamation success for land reclaimed to pastureland and rangeland in accordance <br />with (Rule 4.15.8) <br />13. Page 2.05-122.1 includes discussion of NPDES permits obtained for the Foidel Creek Mine. <br />Please add recently obtained NPDES permits, COG-072758 and COG-850048 to this discussion. <br />(Rule 2.03.10). <br />14. Rule 2.04.11(4) Fish and Wildlife Resources Information states, "The potential for impacts to <br />rare and endangered animal species shall be evaluated by the Division in consultation with <br />appropriate Federal and State agencies." Please review the current State and Federal lists of <br />Threatened and Endangered species and provide updates, as necessary, to this section of the <br />permit to assure that all applicable species on the current Threatened and Endangered Species <br />lists for both State (CDOW) and Federal (USFWS) lists are included. <br />Please update Section 2.05.6(2) Fish and Wildlife Plan as necessary. <br />15. Please update the discussion of mine water handling system and treatment found on page <br />2.05-128. This page was last updated on 1/3/2000. Mine water handling and treatment system <br />has undergone changes since that date. <br />16. With the approval of TR64, the last two lines of page 2.05-181.9 were inadvertently lost. <br />Please revise page 2.05-181.9 to recover the wording, "Right and 18-Right. It is anticipated that <br />no problems will result from undermining and subsiding the track, given the knowledge and <br />experience gained through the previous similar activities." <br />17. During the review of MR230, the Division questioned the applicability to TCC of a sulfate <br />receiving stream standard. The applicable standards for Region 12, Yampa River are shown on <br />current tables provided through the Water Quality Control Division web site. The two segments <br />of interest are 13f on Trout Creek from the confluence with Fish Creek to the Yampa River, and <br />segment 13c, from the confluence with Fish Creek upstream to a point closer to the Edna Mine. <br />Both of these segments have a "WS" designation for sulfate, meaning "water supply". The <br />"WS" abbreviation means that the less restrictive of ambient quality on January 1, 2000 or <br />sulfate of 250 mg/1 shall be the applicable in-stream standard. However, for all surface waters <br />with a "water supply " classification that are not in actual use as a water supply, no water <br />supply standards are applied for iron, manganese, and sulfate, unless the Commission <br />determines as a result of a site-specific rulemaking hearing that such standards are appropriate.