Laserfiche WebLink
This issue is resolved. Page 2.05-85 was revised in the June 1, 2010 submittal to show that Delta <br />County has specific development regulations but not for postmining land uses. BRL was notified by <br />Delta County that a county review of PR-12 was not needed. Also, in the July 8, 2010 submittal, page <br />2.05-87 was revised to correctly reference pages 2.05-90 through 2.05-93. <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. 1 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 />46. In the last two paragraphs on revised page 2.05-118 and in the first two paragraphs on revised page <br />2.05-119, the monitoring schedules state that a full suite sample will be taken quarterly and a full suite <br />sample from list 1 will be taken semi-annually. Please clarify. <br />This issue is resolved. Pages 2.05-118 and 2.05-119 were revised in the June 1, 2010 submittal to <br />reflect the correct monitoring schedule. <br />47. Please explain why BRL is proposing to terminate hydrologic monitoring of well TC-03-01(R), as <br />shown on revised pages 2.05-117 and 2.05-124. <br />This issue is resolved. BRL explained that the well monitored the Rollins and that aquifer is isolated <br />from the effects of mining. <br />48. Please explain why the text concerning hydrologic monitoring for culverts C-1 through C-4 is being <br />deleted on revised pages 2.05-119 and 2.05-124. These four culvert locations still appear on Map 9. <br />10