Laserfiche WebLink
<br />95-01 (West Fork Jubb Creek).” While the Division is correct that Colowyo has established those <br />three points of compliance wells, the Division needs to revise this statement, as approved under TR- <br />109, there are not any AVFs present on the drainages that contain those points of compliance wells. <br />The Division’s discussion in this section needs to be specifically tailor to Good Springs Creek as <br />Wilson, Jubb, and Collom Gulch as approved under TR-109 have been determined to not be AVFs. <br /> <br />While technically Wilson, Jubb and Collom Gulch, as approved under TR-109, has been determined <br />to not be AVFs, Section III. Hydrologic Balance – Rule 4.05, Part L, Alluvial Groundwater of the <br />Findings Document is not specific to AVFs but to alluvial groundwater and there is no mention by the <br />Division in regards to AVFs in this section. While there is a determination that no AVFs exist within <br />the drainages, alluvium is still present (as shown on Map 11C) and so alluvial groundwater discussion <br />regarding Wilson, Jubb and Collom Gulch are still applicable. No changes will be made to this section. <br /> <br />3. Tri-State: Section VI. Use of Explosives – Rule 4.08, Page 43. The Division quotes “...the Paul Routsen <br />residence…”, while at the time this was correct the property has since been sold. It may be appropriate <br />to update the narrative to state, “the Cannon Family Partnership, LLLP property (formally owned by <br />Paul Routsen)”. Additionally, the Division needs to add language to the findings document to denote <br />the pre-blast survey offerings included in Volume 20, Exhibit 14 Item 8. <br /> <br />Property ownership is no longer Paul Routsen but as stated in Tri-State’s comment. Tri-States <br />proposed update will be included. Additional information will be included regarding Volume 20, <br />Exhibit 14, Item 8 to include the additional survey offerings. <br /> <br />4. Tri-State: Section VII. Disposal of Excess Spoil – Rule 4.09, Page 44. The last full paragraph of <br />this section, the Division states, “…the Division found the proposed West Pit and Section 16 excess <br />spoil fills were designed in compliance with the requirements of Rule 4.09.2.” While this statement <br />is true, the word “proposed” is incorrect and should be removed. Both fills have been constructed <br />and stable for a long period of time. The Section 16 Fill has been Phase III release also. <br /> <br />The word “proposed” will be removed from this section. An additional comment will be added to <br />update the Section 16 Fill status. <br /> <br />5. Tri-State: Section X. Slides and Damage – Rule 4.12, Page 44. The Division states that slides have <br />occurred within the permit boundary, and that they have been reclaimed as appropriate. It is