Laserfiche WebLink
9. We were unable to locate many of the old permit revisions during the era in <br />question. Therefore, we cannot develop a full chronology of the transformations <br />concerning the location where water enters the raw water pipeline as it relates to specific <br />permitting actions. Pertinent information concerning the Raw Water Lagoon is already <br />included in Section III.D.2 on page III-34 and Section IV.F.1 on page IV-26. A more than <br />adequate history is already provided within these sections. <br />Approval to pump directly from the raw water lagoon to the rest of the raw water system <br />was affirmed in Permit Renewal #2 in 1994. Section III.D.2, page III-35 (Renewal #2, <br />5/94) was modified and approved as part of this renewal (copy attached). <br />The Proposed Decision and Findings of Compliance document written by DMG approving <br />Permit Renewal No. 02 further confirmed this pumping system. On page 4 it is stated <br />"The mine pumps water directly from a lagoon formed by the reservoir." On page 18 it is <br />further stated "The permittee will be obtaining part of the required water supply from the <br />White River Lagoon, as discussed earlier. Approximately 600 gpm will be pumped from <br />the lagoon to a head tank in the D-Portal area." <br />Determining the exact permitting action that the Division first approved the direct pumping <br />from the lagoon and identifying any subsequent permitting actions regarding this system <br />is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is what it is currently approved within the permit. <br />10. Information contained in Section ILA was reviewed and found to be current. Prior <br />to the start of construction/mining at the Deserado Mine extensive archaeological studies <br />were performed to identify resources within the Mine's area of interest. The information <br />presented within Section ILA and Map 3 is inclusive of areas we have expanded onto and <br />areas of likely future expansion. Since these studies, no additional sites were identified <br />that are listed or deemed eligible for listing with the National Register of Historic Places. <br />Any additional finds have not risen to the level of being considered `significant', <br />warranting inclusion within the permit. <br />Formal review of Deserado's activities, as it relates to cultural resources, is undertaken <br />through the BLM. During the application process for a Federal Coal Lease potential <br />impacts are evaluated through the NEPA process. When surface disturbing activities are <br />proposed, additional reviews are triggered to identify potential impacts. The BLM <br />archaeologist maintains records of these cultural resources, defines appropriate actions <br />as warranted, and provides interactions with the Colorado SHPO. <br />It is Blue Mountain Energy's policy to avoid known cultural resources with surface <br />disturbing activities. The types of activities foreseen in the near future, primarily drill <br />holes and associated disturbances, are typically flexible enough to avoid such resources. <br />11. Current information and existing discussions relating to TE&S species were <br />reviewed. In addition to the sources references in your letter, species occurrence <br />information was downloaded by USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle from the Colorado Natural <br />Heritage Program at: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/Iist.html . Quadrangles of interest <br />are Cactus Reservoir and Rangely NE. Listed species were reviewed through various