Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Products Mine that would support this claim. Therefore, staff is uncertain as to the <br />assumption made in this statement. <br />age 3, Paragraph 3 <br />± is not the responsibility of the Board to ensure financial viability of the applicant. " <br />tall agrees with this statement. But staff also must point out the Board, in review, generally <br />yes not want to unduly hinder an operator either. <br />2, Introduction <br />tall feels this is restating the question of Page 1, Paragraph 2 and is answered. <br />age 2, Paragraph 4 <br />=arina ....." <br />tall response is that it is an assumption that the upper and lower terraces are not in direct <br />intact. Is there data to support the claim? The Spring Creek Mesa does have numerous <br />djudicated springs. The mesa covers several square miles and the Division can only be <br />~ncerned with those directly affected by the mining operation. The trout farm is located two <br />Eger ridges over from the mine site. WestWater itself denoted that this area is isolated <br />ydrologicaly when comparing the Corey Pit, which is between the trout farm and the Haldorson <br />line. If the Corey Pit is isolated, the trout farm is irrelevant. Also, the trout farm and Corey Pit <br />re considerably up gradient to Phase 1 of this operation, which is the area under consideration <br />pith this Petition for Reconsideration. <br />age 3, Paragraph 2. <br />This entire paragraph is incorrect and pointless as stated previously the surface of fhe Mancos <br />'hale is an erosional feature »ot a structural feature." <br />/estWater states, "the Mancos Shale has a structural dip, but gravel and water are effected by <br />rosional features." Staff review of the Lewicki paragraph is that the structural dip is what is <br />Bing addressed. The dip appraisal is based on drill logs for this site. The argument that this is <br />"gross assumption" is valid if looked at on a very large scale, but not in the site-specific <br />~ntext of this report. Erosional features in the bedrock may actually be a deterrent to <br />roundwater disturbance as the water will seek the lowest points and Mancos ridges will prevent <br />r hinder deeper excavations that would contact the groundwater table. Larger erosional <br />natures may also act as diversions to the water table and direct groundwater away from areas <br />f concern. <br />age 3, Paragraph 3. <br />vlut~oint, fhe auality of the water has nothing to do with the application." <br />.ule 3.1.6 and 6.4.7(5) specifically address water quality issues for any 112c permit. <br />