2012-08-27_REVISION - C1980004

• Permit No: C1980004
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 8/27/2012
• Doc Name: Response Letter
• From: J.E. Stover & Associates, Inc
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: PR2
• Email Name: MPB
• Email Name: SB1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

MINE ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING
MINE RECLAMATION CONST. MANAGEMENT
August 23, 2012
Dear Mr. Boulay:
J. E. STOVER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2352 NORTH 7th STREET, UNIT B
GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501
PHONE: [phone], FAX [phone]
Mike Boulay
Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety RECEIVE)
1313 Sherman Street, Room 215
Denver, CO 80203 AuG 27 2012
Re: McClane Canyon Mining, LLC oiRon,
McClane Canyon Mine oiv �° taaretvat
Permit Revision Application No. 2
Permit number: C -1980 -004
This letter is in response to the DRMS' adequacy letter dated February 25, 2011 for the
PR -02 application. It is intended to clarify the components that will be included with the
adequacy response that will be forthcoming.
The PR -02 application was submitted on October 29, 2010 and contained plans to build
an air jig facility, an expansion to surface facilities (sediment pond, coal mine waste pile,
topsoil and construction material storage piles), and a revision to the mine plan and
permit boundary expansion. At the same time MCM applied for a Federal Coal Lease
modification from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that once approved would be
incorporated into the permit document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project in its entirety was initiated by the
BLM in July of 2010. During this time MCM worked with BLM to its address comments
and questions and attempted to provide mitigation to BLM resource issues.
However, in February 2012 BLM notified DRMS they would be revising the scope of the
EA and said it would not be completing the EA for the surface facilities, only for the
lease modification area. BLM indicated their involvement in the expansion of the
surface facilities would be limited to providing comments during the DRMS adequacy
review process, thus removing themselves from the lead agency role. BLM then
provided its comments on the PR -02 application package and stated its objection to an
expansion of the surface facilities. BLM further stated it could not provide concurrence
with approval of the plan primarily due to location of the coal mine waste pile.
MCM worked diligently for several months to address comments in the DRMS adequacy
letter and tried to work out mitigation for potential BLM resource issues. However, since