My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-02-15_REVISION - C1980004 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1980004
>
2011-02-15_REVISION - C1980004 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:31:02 PM
Creation date
3/7/2011 2:06:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980004
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/15/2011
Doc Name
Preliminary Adequacy Review
From
DRMS
To
McClane Canyon Mining, LLC
Type & Sequence
PR2
Email Name
MPB
SB1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CDOW Rebuttal Statement — Regulation 37 <br />December 2010 Reg. 37 Rule - Making Hearing <br />capacity of East Salt Creek to support reproducing populations of fish. <br />The CDOW's survey results for East Salt Creek do not have a direct effect on either the <br />CAM proposal or the WQCD proposal because both entities have proposed that the <br />maiunstem of East Salt Creek remain in existing Segment 13a. However, the CDOW <br />believes that the results of these surveys are indicative of general patterns of variability <br />expected in ephemeral and intermittent streams. In particular, it is unlikely that a single <br />reconnaissance site on an and ephemeral or intermittent stream will provide an adequate <br />characterization of the stream's potential to support flowing or standing water and aquatic <br />life, especially if no biological data are collected. For these reasons, the CDOW believes <br />it is appropriate that the WQCD focused its alternative proposal to include only those <br />streams covered by more rigorous biological sampling (Le., no reconnaissance sites). <br />While the streams in the WQCD's proposed Segment De where characterized by single <br />sampling sites, the exclusion of streams with no biological sampling is an improvement <br />over CAM's original proposal. <br />Table 1. CDOW personnel observed hundreds of juvenile and larval fish in East Salt <br />Creek in June 2010. A subsarnple of these fish (n = 87) was sent to the Colorado State <br />University Larval Fish Labor atory for identification, and the results are presented below. <br />--- <br />ON ME <br />i t r- <br />postflexion mesolarvae (n = 1) <br />7.5 <br />metalarvae (n = 1) <br />15 <br />juvenile (n = 2) <br />16.5 <br />adult (n = 2 ) <br />67 -68 <br />postflexion mesolarvae (n -10) <br />20 -23 <br />metalarvae (n = 46) <br />24 -28 <br />juven (n = 25) <br />30 -34 <br />The CDOW also wishes to emphasize that, like the bluehead sucker collected in East Salt <br />Creek by GEI (CAM Exhibit 4, page 27), flannelmouth sucker are a declining native <br />species (Rees et al. 2005). Along with five other states and federal agencies, the CDOW <br />is a signatory to the Range -Wide Agreement -and Conservation -Strategy aimed at the^ - <br />cooperative conservation of roundtail chub, bluehead sucker, and flannelmouth sucker <br />(Karpowitz 2006). Given the limited mobility of larval fish, it is likely that East Salt <br />Creek supports spawning and rearing for sensitive life stages of native suckers. The <br />CDOW expects similar conditions in West Salt Creek and Big Salt Wash (CDOW RPHS, <br />page 3), and the WQCD's proposed resegmentation addresses the CDOW's <br />recommendation that West Salt Creek and Big Salt Wash be retained along with East Salt <br />Creek in existing Segment 13a. However, the CDOW notes that additional water - quality <br />data and data confirming the presence of these fishes may support adoption of the full <br />suite of aquatic life standards in these streams in the future. <br />In addition to differences in geographic coverage, the alternative proposed by the WQCD <br />differs from CAM's original proposal in terms of the applicable water - quality standards. <br />While CAM originally proposed no standards for pH and a dissolved oxygen standard of <br />December 1, 2010 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.