Laserfiche WebLink
<br />outside the permit area, <br />7. Tables 1 and 2 of Exhibit 9A show total discharge values of <br />575 and 1657 gpm for the Eastern Mining District. How do <br />these flows relate to the text estimates on page 2.05- <br />^„)~ 118(z)(5) of 85-245 gpm? Page 2.04-13 (a) also states one <br />Vim- panel inflows could be 55-227 gpm and total EMD inflows could <br />~~ be 574-1657 gpm. Which of these estimates is correct? This <br />~}1 information needs clarified and corrected as necessary. <br />8. What does a faster-than-expected migration of the spoil plume <br />from past surface mining say about the hydraulic conductivity <br />values of the Wadge overburben, which were subsequently used <br />in the inflow calculations? <br />9. All domestic wells in T6N, R86W, Sec. 14, 24, 25, 36 (lower <br />Trout Creek) should be listed in Exhibit 6A and spotted on a <br />map. Due to the elevated levels of sulfate near or above the <br />receiving stream standard of 250 mg/1 on this section of Trout <br />Creek, the Division will require monitoring of one or more <br />domestic wells on this reach of stream. Please submit this <br />information for Division review. <br />10. Related to 9. above, TCC should include permit text, under <br />sections 2.04.7(3) Alternative Water Supplies, which discusses <br />the extent to which sulfate increases on Trout Creek could <br />impact domestic users. <br />11. TCC should commit to limited monitoring of the following EMD <br />affected wells: <br />•J. Adams, Sec. 24 <br />~~ Grandbouche, Sec. 23 (126333) <br />Ashley, Sec. 22 <br />~• George, Sec. 27 <br />f~/ ~ Gulf, Sec. 28 <br />d` Q'~~ <br />Please provide a monitoring plan for Division review. <br />12. Table 63A indicates FBR-2 is completed in the Wadge coal but <br />Table D, (Hydrologic Monitoring for EMD) indicates FBR-2 is a <br />Twentymile sandstone well. Please submit completion <br />information for all EMD proposed monitoring wells and clarify <br />(`~ which formation FBR-2 monitors. <br />v\ 13. Well 93003M (Table 8b) is not in Table D, Hydrologic <br />monitoring program. Is this a proposed monitoring site? <br />14. Table 67b indicates a well FO-2. Should this be FO-4? Please <br />clarify. <br />15. Page 14-7 (c) says that surface and alluvial sites will be <br />installed one year prior to undermining. Please provide a <br />schedule as part of the permit text for installation of these <br />