PERMFILE46933 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Permit Revision Adequacy Comment Response November 30, 2004 Page 7 of 24 i MCC Response: MCC added a discussion on baseline groundwater data and relevant - discussion about potential aquifers in the area. 34. On page 2.04-57, the penultimate pazagraph discusses water levels in monitoring well SOM-C- 76, completed in the F-seam, responding to drought years. Please correlate the observation with the discussion on "active" and "inactive" zones and if MCC is implying that this well is in an "active zone?" The conclusion that water in the seam is "active" water has strong implications in the analysis of the groundwater system in the SOD azea. MCC Response: Alan Mayo re-wrote the discussion regarding active vs. inactive. 35. On page 2.04-58, can any meaningful observations be added on water in the E-seam from E- seam development to date? MCC Response: The development in E Seam is dry (to-date). 36. On page 2.04-58, in the first pazagraph of "Barren Member" section, the description of "highly lenticulaz" sandstone is used. Please explain what is meant by that. MCC Response: The word "highly" was removed. 37. On page 2.04-69, the same observation applies as in #18. Please include data from the springs and a discussion in the text rather than just referring to the data as contained in the AHR. MCC Response: MCC has included data and discussion of the springs. 38. MCC has collected baseline surface water data on most of the streams which will be affected by SOD mining. In the surface water baseline monitoring program, beginning on page 2.04- 71, MCC further commits to collect baseline data or to reinstate data collection in the summer or the yeaz before mining impacts are anticipated in the SOD azea. These commitments are found on pages 2.04-76 (for some surface stations) and on page 2.04-78 (for portions of the spring monitoring program.) In PR-10, MCC is proposing to mine in the Minnesota Creek drainage basin. Please provide a detailed monitoring plan and schedule for the surface water quality and quantity and spring information in the SOD area. In particular, the Division feels that data should be provided for the Deep Creek ditch trans-basin diversion, Deer Creek, Poison Gulch, South Prong and the upper East Fork of Minnesota Creek, as portions of the drainage basins of these streams will be undermined by SOD activity. MCC Response: MCC has provided a discussion regarding the proposed monitoring. 39. On page 2.04-73, the last sentence contains a minor typographical error. MCC Response: MCC has made the correction. 40. Similar to question #18, while complete attalyses of groundwater quality are contained within • the annual hydrology reports, as noted on page 2.04-77, the Division requests that MCC