Laserfiche WebLink
The operator should provide a detailed analysis of the impacts to the quantity and quality of <br />surface water and groundwater. <br />The analysis should show that onsite impacts have been minimized and offsite impacts <br />prevented, and should include: <br />• an assessment of the available hydrologic data, relative to the impact projections <br />contained within the approved Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) and the <br />applicable Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment (CHM); and <br />• an evaluation of any impact trends which may exist in the available data <br />RESPONSE: Weaver Engineering Services has performed an evaluation of the available data and the PHC which can be <br />found in APPENDIX "A" included with this submittal. <br />With the TR43 application, EFCI submitted a cover letter and 5 attachments: (A) Proposed Public <br />Notice; (B) DRMS Hydrologic Review; (C) Historical Water Monitoring Data; (D) Map 12, Mine <br />Area Surface and Groundwater Hydrology; and (E) Exhibit 25, Hydrologic Monitoring Program <br />(additional introductory page). Attachment B, the "DRMS Hydrologic Review ", is a copy of an <br />interoffice memorandum written by the Division on June 3, 2013, with the subject: Groundwater <br />Review related to Citizen Complaint? It will be referred to as the "June 2013 Memo' henceforth in <br />this letter. <br />A follow up to the original application packet was received from EFCI on January 19, 2015, <br />comprising a letter discussing MW -NW and an accompanying sketch. <br />The Division received comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), on January 14, <br />20152 CPW found no water quality issues in the data supplied by EFCI and would endorse the <br />termination of water monitoring provided that "reclamation has been completed to the <br />satisfaction of [DRAE], and water leakage from the mine area is not a concern ". <br />The Division also received comments from several citizens, or groups of citizens, in relation to <br />TR43: <br />• On November 19, 2014, an email was received from Dr. Corley.' It will be referred to as <br />the "November 2014 Corley comments ". <br />• On December 8, 2014 emails were received from South Central Land and Mining, LLC5 <br />and K2T, LLC6. These two emails contain much of the same content and will be referred <br />to as the "December 2014 Vento comments ". <br />The November 2104 Corley comments comprise two substantive issues: <br />• A question referring to previously stated concerns over the loss of water from Newlin <br />Creek <br />• A comment referring to presumed errors in reports prepared by Bishop - Brogden <br />Associates (BBA) on behalf of EFCI <br />These issues will be addressed within the broader content of this review. <br />2 <br />