Laserfiche WebLink
Response -All sub lateral ditches and branches have been added to Map2.04.7-1. <br />8. In the "Effects of Mining on the Permit Area Geomorphology" section on page 23 of <br />Section 2.04.7, mention is made of Chiles Draw. This draw does not appear on Map 2.04.7- <br />1. Is this draw supposed to be Glasier Draw? <br />Response - Yes, Glasier Draw was mistakenly referred to as Chiles Draw. It has been <br />corrected <br />9. On page 21 of the Probable Hydrologic Consequences discussion of Section 2.04.7, it is <br />stated that the 2nd Park Lateral irrigation ditch water will be put into a pipeline and diverted <br />around the mine site. After mining, the original ditch would be reestablished. Please point <br />out which maps show the proposed location of the pipeline. <br />Response A map in Appendix 2.05.3(4)-4 will show the proposed location of the pipeline. <br />It will be submitted after the ditch relocation report is completed <br />10. The permit text contains two different Probable Hydrologic Consequences discussions, one <br />in Section 2.04.7 of Volume 1 and one in Section 2.05.6(3) of Volume 2. In order to avoid <br />confusion and since the PHC requirement is under Rule 2.05.6(3), the Division requests that <br />one PHC discussion be presented and that it be located in Section 2.05.6(3). <br />Response - PHC discussion has been removed from in the revised Section 2.04.7 <br />11. Map 2.04.7-1 and Map 2.05.3(3)-1 show several surface water bodies within the permit area. <br />However, there is no discussion of these water bodies in the Site Specific Surface Water <br />Information section or in the Probable Hydrologic Consequences section of Section 2.04.7 <br />and 2.05.6(3). Please revise the appropriate permit text under Rule 2.04.7(2)(a) to include a <br />description, including ownership and use, of these water bodies. Depending on their use, <br />Rule 2.04.7(3), requiring alternate water supply information, may be applicable and these <br />water bodies may need to be added to the surface water hydrology monitoring program <br />required under Rule 2.05.6(3)(b)(iv). In addition, if water rights are involved, then, those <br />rights need to be protected under Rule 4.05.15. Please revise the text where necessary. <br />Response - Discussion of ponds has been added, PHC discussion has been removed from <br />this section. <br />12. As shown in the surface water monitoring data sheets in Appendix 2.04.7-2, monitoring sites <br />SW-N202 and SW-N203 experienced flows throughout the year but no full water quality <br />analyses were completed. Please explain. <br />Response - Samples for three quarters of the year are shown. For an unknown reason, <br />one quarter (February) has no samples. The monitoring program continues and samples <br />were taken the following February. <br />13. In Table 2.04.7-5 on page 17 of Section 2.04.7, surface water monitoring station SW-N205 <br />is described as being inflow for Glasier Draw. However, referring to the topographic contour <br />lines on Map 2.04.7-1, it appears that runoff from this site would flow southwest into <br />Meehan Draw, rather than into Glasier Draw. Please explain. <br />Response to First Adequacy Review Page 21