Laserfiche WebLink
This issue is resolved. Revised page 2.05-85 was provided in the submittal dated June 1, 2010. <br />40. In the last paragraph on revised page 2.05-85, please update the first sentence to show that other <br />landowners are involved. <br />In the June 1, 2010 submittal, BRL stated that the text was revised. However, the copy of page 2.05-85 <br />that was submitted does not show this change. Please provide a revised page 2.05-85. <br />41. As was brought up in Section 2.04.3 above, in the second sentence of the last paragraph on revised <br />page 2.05-85, please update, if appropriate, the statement that Delta County does not have any land <br />use regulations. There is an example of county approval in the middle of revised page 2.05-87. <br />Page 2.05-85 was revised in the June 1, 2010 submittal to show that Delta County has specific <br />development regulations but not for postmining land uses. BRL was notified by Delta County that a <br />county review of PR-12 was not needed. As an additional question, however, the county approval <br />mentioned on page 2.05-87 references pages 2.05-60iii through 60vi. These four pages appear in the <br />approved permit application but do not appear in the revised text submitted in the original PR-12 <br />application. Please explain. <br />Section 2.05.6 Mitigation of the Impacts of Mining Operations <br />42. Please add the Rare Earth Science Threatened & Endangered Species Inventory, dated December 5, <br />2007, to the discussion on revised page 2.05-98 in Section 2.05.6(2)(a)(iii)(A-C). <br />This issue is resolved. Revised page 2.05-98 was provided in the June 1, 2010 submittal. <br />43. On revised page 2.05-100, please describe the reclamation of the Freeman Gulch vent shaft and how <br />that reclamation protects the hydrologic balance. <br />This issue is resolved. The requested discussion was added to revised page 2.05-100 in the June 1, <br />2010 submittal. <br />44. On revised page 2.05-110, there is a discussion of mine water inflow and discharge from the Bowie <br />No. 2 Mine. If data are available, please update the discussion to include anticipated mine inflow and <br />discharge due to proposed mining in the transferred Bowie No. I Mine area. <br />This issue is resolved. In the June 1, 2010 submittal, BRL explained that the Bowie No. 1 Mine is a <br />dry mine and that the mine water inflow will probably decrease as mining moves from the northeast to <br />the west. <br />45. On revised page 2.05-116, there are five monitored springs listed that have decreed water rights. <br />However, the two tables on revised page 2.04-29 show that there are several additional springs and <br />ponds that also have decreed water rights and that will be monitored. Please update the hydrologic <br />monitoring plan in Section 2.05.6(3)(b)(iv) to include all of the decreed water rights. <br />This issue is resolved. In the June 1, 2010 submittal, BRL deleted the five springs from the text on <br />revised page 2.05-116. The detailed monitoring schedule is listed on the pages that follow. <br />9