Laserfiche WebLink
The second question that you raised in your letter was concerning the review time and cost for your <br />proposal. The primary factors that have impacted the review include inadequate development of <br />CAM's current proposal and insufficient coordination with BLM. The time that my staff has spent <br />reviewing CAM's proposal has also been influenced by CAM's need to relocate an existing power <br />line and irrigation ditch, as well as by a lengthy consultation process with U.S. Fish and Wildlife <br />Service ( "USFWS "). Conflicts with an existing power line that is located in the middle of the <br />proposed refuse pile were not resolved prior to the submission of your proposal. The irrigation ditch <br />was not considered in your current design and would have been buried by the sediment pond. The <br />irrigation ditch is still in use by HLR that has water rights likely dating back to 1866. Also, as <br />previously mentioned the consultation process with USFWS has resulted in delays due to the <br />submission of 2 separate Biological Assessment's, and due to numerous requests for clarification and <br />additional information from USFWS. The consultation process was further complicated by changes <br />in requested water depletions by CAM after consultation had already been initiated. DRMS initiated <br />consultation with USFWS in December 2010 by submitting a Biological Assessment ( "BA ") for the <br />mine. OSM submitted an additional BA for the proposed loadout facility to USFWS in February <br />2011. My staff has worked closely with OSM to combine the two previously submitted BAs and to <br />ensure that all of USFWS's questions and comments have been fully addressed. <br />In your letter, you also had a question regarding adherence to the current GJFO RMP. I would like <br />to assure you that the BLM is adhering to the RMP in the ongoing review process for the McClane <br />Canyon Mine proposal. By law, BLM is responsible for ensuring that the scenic values of public <br />lands are considered before allowing uses that may have negative visual impacts. Section 102 of the <br />Federal Land Management Policy Act ( FLPMA) states that, "the public lands be managed in a <br />manner that will protect the quality of the scientific, scenic ... values" (43 U.S.C. § 102 (a) (8)). <br />FLPMA also requires the BLM to manage public lands according to land use plans, and to "use and <br />observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield" when developing and revising LUPs (43 <br />U.S.0 §202 (a) and (c)(1). Under multiple use, BLM is required to manage public lands for a <br />combination of balanced and diverse resource uses while considering the long -term needs of the <br />American people for renewable and non - renewable resources (43 U.S.C. § 103 (c)). During review <br />of CAM's proposal, BLM must consider conformance with VRM class designation as set forth in <br />the 1987 RMP. Your current proposed coal waste rock pile design and location would not meet <br />Class III objectives under the RMP, which only allows for moderate changes to the landscape that <br />do not dominate the view. Pursuant to the 1987 RMP, "Projects that would noticeably change the <br />characteristic landscape will be modified to blend in with the characteristic landscape, will be <br />denied, or will be moved to another more suitable location" (GJFO RMP 2 -22 1987). The GJFO is <br />revisiting the VRM classifications in our ongoing RMP revision; however, planning for your <br />proposal will likely be completed prior to the finalization of our new RMP. As a result, the proposal <br />must conform to the current RMP. <br />Additionally, I am concerned with the existing site location because reducing the proposed pile size <br />to meet VRM concerns would reduce the site's long -term capacity and period of use. Your previous <br />purchase contract for coal did not require the coal to be cleaned, and your current mining approval <br />