2008-10-27_REVISION - C1980004 (2)

Home Browse Search

Mike Boulay -4- October 23, 2008 Rule 2.05 .4(2)(c) Plan for Backfilling and Grading 43(a) through 46. Items Resolved. Rule 2.05.4(2)(e) Reve ietation Plan 47. through 49. Items Resolved. Rule 2.05.6(1) Air Pollution Control Plan 50. The Division requested a copy of the Air Emission Permit application pertinent to TR-16 proposed activity, for inclusion in Appendix E. The cover letter item response indicates that a copy of the Emission permit application was attached to the submittal, but could not be found in the submittal copy reviewed. Please submit a copy of the referenced emission permit application. CAM: Please see the attached Air Emission Permit for inclusion in Appendix E. Rule 2.05.6(2) Fish and Wildlife Plan 51. The Division requested the operator to address the concern identified by OSM regarding possible impact of proposed disturbance on the threatened Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Scierocactus glaucus). In response, the operator submitted a brief opinion letter addendum to Table 4.3-10, prepared by Rare Earth Science, the consultant who prepared the 2006 Draft Biological Assessment for the McClane Canyon Mine permit renewal. The opinion letter supports the conclusion of the 2006 report, namely that no impact would occur to the subject cactus species, due to lack of documented occurrences within several miles of the mine and lack of suitable habitat within the area of proposed disturbance (East Salt Creek terrace with dense big sagebrush/greasewood shrubland vegetation). Item tentatively resolved; response will be forwarded to OSM for their review and consideration with respect to preparation of the biological assessment. 52. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) had previously commented on aspects of the TR-16 plan, with comments focusing primarily on water quality impacts associated with proposed waste pile and associated sediment pond discharge/leachate. CAM's most recent submittal included responses to the original DOW concerns, which DOW has reviewed and commented on in a letter dated August 19, 2008, received by the Division on August 28, 2009. DOW continues to have concerns related to potential water quality impacts of the proposed activities to East Salt Creek. A copy of DOW's August 19, 2008 review letter is enclosed. Please review and respond to the concerns identified by DOW. A meeting including appropriate CAM, DOW, and Division personnel may be