Laserfiche WebLink
To: `1r. Peter HayN <br /> Date: Februat-v 21, 2022 <br /> PaLlre 26 <br /> Response 4 <br /> We are glad to discuss this comment with the reviewer as we are unclear about the <br /> comment's reference to two feet. The text from Section 5.3.1 in Appendix D from the <br /> October 2021 response to application completeness states: <br /> "Figure 16 summarizes the anticipated changes in groundwater levels associated <br /> with neighboring wells. Nelson shows approximately two feet of drawdown well <br /> within a range that will not negatively change their ability to withdraw irrigation <br /> water from the well. The two Wagner wells will likely experience around afoot of <br /> mounding, affecting their wells in a positive manner. The largest potential impact <br /> shown is to the Dunn well, where it approaches the 10%of well depth criteria. <br /> Drawdown is only one component of a well's ability to extract water. The lakes <br /> in Cell 2 and Cell 3 will effectively enhance the production of the well by <br /> developing a constant groundwater level nearer to the well. Thus,for the same <br /> amount of pumping, the required drawdown in the well will be much less and the <br /> well will operate more efficiently." <br /> The paragraph identifies the Dunn well as one that requires monitoring. LRM is working <br /> with the owner to establish baseline and a monitoring approach as the project commences. <br /> Comment 5 <br /> In Figure 16 three of the four wells graphed have a starting point that indicates increased <br /> water levels, shouldn't all wells begin at 0.0 indicating no mining influence? <br /> Response 5 <br /> Figure 16 starts at the end of Step 01 (mining of the first five acres). All drawdowns prior <br /> to this are zero. <br /> Comment 6 <br /> All groundwater sample results need to be compared to the Water Quality Control <br /> Commission's (WQCC) Regulation No. 41 — The Basic Standards for Groundwater (Reg <br /> 41) and the most conservative values in Tables 1 thru 4 for all analytes listed for minimum <br /> offive consecutive quarters. The sample results from the June/August 2021 sampling event <br /> only compared results to WQCC Reg 41 Tables 1 and 2. Table 3 of Reg 41 are agriculture <br /> standards which contain a few analytes that Tables 1 and 2 omit. <br /> Response 6 <br /> We have added comparisons to WQCC Regulation 41 Table 3 to the initial water quality <br /> testing results, and have updated the footer(Attachment 15). <br /> 20220209 1045_DBMS_Adequacy Review Response_MASTE <br /> Rdoex TELESTG <br />