Laserfiche WebLink
following bond release. A soil handling proposal to re-establish the reclaimed lands to an <br />"improved/irrigable" post-mining use may be a valid approach. <br />Response - The permit language which was developed relative to the meeting held at the <br />"neighboring mine" relative to the development of an "improvedlirrigable" reclamation <br />approach has been added to the end of Permit Section 2.05.5. <br />2.05.6 - Mitigation of the Impacts of Mining Operations <br />2.05.6 1 -Air pollution control plan <br />As stated in the application, WFC has submitted an application to the Colorado Department <br />of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) for an <br />emissions permit. Please provide a copy of the permit, when issued, for inclusion within the <br />PAP. <br />Response -A copy ofAPCD permit will be submitted to DRMS once it is issued to WFC. <br />2.05.6 2 - Fish and wildlife plan <br />1. The Division will be contacting the Colorado Division of Wildlife to obtain the agency's <br />written approval of (or any comments on) the proposed plan. <br />Response: As directed by the DRMS in the adequacy review meeting held in Denver the <br />CDOW office in Grand Junction was contacted and asked to provide comments directly to <br />the DRMS. DRMS has received a letter dated March 14, 2011 from CDOW addressing the <br />T &E species issue. A copy of this letter is included in PAP as Appendix 2.05.6(2)-1. A <br />reference to this appendix has been added in the first paragraph of page I of Section <br />2.05.6(2). <br />2.05.6 3 - Protection of hydrological balance <br />1. In the last sentence on page 6 of the Protection of the Hydrologic Balance section of <br />2.05.6(3), it is stated that some of the surface water monitoring sites may be relocated as the <br />mining progresses. The Division is concerned that the relocation of monitoring sites may <br />result in a lack of continuity in the monitoring program. Please explain which monitoring <br />sites may be moved and if there are replacement monitoring site locations that would not <br />require relocation. <br />Response - The sites would only be moved with approval of DRMS and the comment was <br />made to deal with situations where others (the County) destroyed the original site like <br />what happened to SW-206. <br />2. On page 7 of the Protection of the Hydrologic Balance section of 2.05.6(3), it is stated that <br />the stream buffer zones along Nygren Draw, Meehan Draw and Glasier Draw will not be <br />Response to First Adequacy Review Page 45