2011-02-15_REVISION - C1980004 (2)

Home Browse Search

Corey Heaps McCIane Canyon Mining, LLC February 15, 2011 Page 17 review process and an approval letter from the BLM should be retained as an Appendix to the PAP, if appropriate. 81. Figure 4.1 -1, Pre and Post Mining Land Use, does not show the topography of the new proposed coal waste pile. Please include the proposed waste pile in Figure 4.1 -1. Rule 2.05.6(2) Fish and Wildlife Plan 82. The Division received a letter from the CDOW dated January 6, 2011 (attached) outlining discrepancies in the wildlife report. Please provide a response to each of the items outlined in the letter. 83. The DOW letter dated July 16, 2010 referenced in this section is in the Fruita Loadout permit file. Please include a copy of this letter in McClane PR -2 permit and reference appropriately. Also include, in the McClane permit, the CDOW letter dated January 6, 2011 (attached, same as above) which is an updated follow -up to the July 6, 2010 letter. 84. It is not clear in the permit application whether the electric poles will have to be moved to accommodate the coal waste pile. Please clarify. If they are being moved, include the mitigation plan for the poles being used as raptor perches. 85. The Division requests that MCM commit to continual monitoring for threatened and endangered species and report any new findings to the CDOW and CDRMS. Rule 2.05.6(3) Protection of hydrological balance 86. On revised permit text page 2.05 -63, reference is made to Map 8 for the hydrologic monitoring locations. Please change this reference to Figure 4.2 -2. 87. There is a typographical error in the second paragraph of page 2.05 -63. Please change "dept" to "depth ". 88. There is no bedrock groundwater monitoring proposed in the revised Hydrologic Monitoring PIan (page 2.05 -63). Please explain how MCM will monitor and ensure the protection of bedrock groundwater within both the proposed permit and adjacent areas from potential adverse effects of the proposed underground mining activities. See Item 14 above and provide a substantive response. 89. There is no proposed plan for laboratory analyses for the currently monitored alluvial wells listed on page 2.05 -63 and there is no Groundwater Parameter List provided. As described in Item 12 above in Section .2.04.7, the Division believes that one additional monitoring point down gradient of the disturbance area associated with the refuse pile is warranted. This well will serve to verify the conclusions presented in the PHC for potential impacts to alluvial groundwater and East Salt Creek. In order to substantiate the conclusions presented in Appendix N — Probable hydrologic Consequences the Division is requesting that the alluvial wells be included for quarterly laboratory analyses for at least one year to establish baseline conditions. At a minimum