Laserfiche WebLink
4. Proposed postmining land use for the NHN permit area is shown on Map 2.05.5 -1. The <br />topographic base layer appears to be that which exists in the pre- mining condition. Please <br />replace this information with the proposed post - mining contours, as shown on Map 2.05.4 -1. <br />Response — Map 2.05.5 -1 has been revised to show the post - mining contours. <br />2.05.6 — Mitigation of the Impacts of Mining Operations <br />2.05.6(2) — Fish and wildlife plan <br />1. DRMS: A letter was received from the CDOW, and has been incorporated into the PAP. <br />a) The Office of Surface Mining has been asked (by the Division) to review the plan for to <br />federally listed species, including fish and plants, in addition to birds and mammals. <br />The water depletion estimate requested in question 2.04.11- 2 is needed for OSM to <br />complete their assessment. When OSM has all necessary documents, they will prepare <br />a Biologic Assessment for consideration by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service <br />(USFWS). USFWS may or may not concur with the OSM recommendation. If the <br />USFWS concludes the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect, or may <br />adversely affect a given species, USFWS will prepare a Biological Opinion describing <br />any conservation or recovery plans that may need to be implemented. <br />Response — The water depletion information has been previously submitted to DRMS. It is <br />also being submitted with this response to be included as Appendix 2.04.11 -2. <br />2.05.6(3) — Protection of hydrological balance <br />2. DRMS: In the submittal dated May 26, 2011, Western Fuels expanded on the discussion <br />concerning stream buffer zones. However, the May 26, 2011 cover letter response to this <br />question states that mining will affect the stream buffer zone along Meehan Draw and that <br />the text was revised to describe this situation. However, in the expanded discussion on page <br />7 of Section 2.05.6(3), it is stated that no stream buffer zones will be affected by mining. <br />Please explain this apparent discrepancy. <br />Response — The text was inadvertently not revised. The text has now been revised to <br />discuss the impact to the stream buffer zone including the insertion of text that was left <br />out in the May revision. <br />3. DRMS: In the submittal dated May 26, 2011, Western Fuels provided the requested <br />calculations in Table 2.05.6(3) -2 on page 29 of Section 2.05.6(3). However, no data were <br />presented for Coal Creek Canyon. Please explain. <br />Response — The correct table was inadvertently not inserted. Data for Coal Canyon is now <br />included in the revised Table 2.05.6(3) -2. <br />10. DRMS: WFC indicates that 2.05.6(3) was updated with a discussion of the effects on Coal <br />Canyon, but there does not appear to be any additional discussion or analysis for Coal <br />Canyon. Table 2.05.6(3) -2 is referenced on page 28 regarding impacts to flow in Coal <br />Creek, but there is no flow or water quality information on Table 2.05.6(3) -2 for Coal Creek <br />Canyon. Please clarify this discrepancy and update the PHC with Coal Creek Canyon <br />information as originally requested. <br />Page 31 <br />