My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-06-02_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089 (10)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2010089
>
2011-06-02_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089 (10)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:34:06 PM
Creation date
6/3/2011 8:50:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2010089
IBM Index Class Name
APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE
Doc Date
6/2/2011
Doc Name
Response to Preliminary Adequacy Review
From
Western Fuels Association
To
DRMS
Email Name
MLT
SB1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Please cross reference this to a location on an appropriate map and add a similar discussion <br />for spoil spring(s) that may issue to Meehan Draw with cross reference to its location on a <br />map. <br />Response -The sections have been revised as suggested. See Table 2.05.6(3)-1 and See <br />Map 2.04.7-1 SS#1 and SS#4, added text on pages 26,2 7,28 and Table 2.05.6(3)-2. <br />18. On page 24 under Impacts to Receiving Waters add a description and pertinent information <br />on spoil spring discharge to Meehan Draw and what the overall impact if any will be to Coal <br />Creek Canyon and ultimately the San Miguel River. <br />Response - The sections have been revised as suggested. See Table 2.05.6(3)-1 and See <br />Map 2.04.7-1 SS#1 and SS#4, added text on pages 26,2 7,28 and Table 2.05.6(3)-2. <br />19. In the third paragraph of page 25, WFC states that quarterly samples will be collected and <br />analyzed for the quality parameters as advised by DRMS. The list of parameters should <br />clearly be identified and included in the approved water monitoring plan. Please revise this <br />statement accordingly and propose a list of parameters at this time for DRMS approval. <br />Response- A description of the monitoring program has been included in Appendix <br />2.05.6.(3)-3. <br />20. At the conclusion of Section 6) Impact of Backfill Water Quality on Surface Water Quality <br />it would be appropriate to discuss the cumulative impact of Spoil Spring #1 discharge plus <br />that from NHN Mine Area. Please provide a summary of cumulative impacts resulting from <br />the combined discharge from SS#1 and that from NI-IN Mine, if deemed appropriate. <br />Response - The discharge from NHN will be at SS#1, See Table 2.05.6(3)-2. <br />21. Please update Table 2.05.6(3)-2 on page 26 with predicted impacts for NHN Mine backfill <br />discharge to Meehan Draw and Coal Creek Canyon. If the predicted impacts (from <br />Meehan/Coal Canyon) change the predicted San Miguel River quality then update the table <br />accordingly. <br />Response - See revised Table 2.05.6(3)-2. <br />22. In Appendix 2.05.6(3)-2, Table 2.05.6(3)-2a lists the "Consequences of the Life-of Mine <br />Mining Plan for the New Horizon Mining Area". In Item 5 Impact of spoil water quality on <br />ground and surface water quality add a discussion of the analysis results and the significance <br />for the predicted spoil spring discharge to Meehan Draw and the overall impact this has on <br />Coal Creek Canyon and the San Miguel River. Add a discussion of the cumulative effect to <br />the San Miguel River from spoil spring discharges to both Tuttle Draw and Meehan Draw. <br />This will be revised as suggested. <br />Response -Seepages 26 thru 28 and revised Table 2.05.6(3). 23. In Section <br />2.05.6(3)(b)(v) NHN Hydrologic Reclamation Plan, WFC states that "...no special handling <br />of materials is anticipated for mining operations conducted." The Division understands that <br />there will be special handling of materials including separation of suitable versus un-suitable <br />materials as described in earlier sections of the application. Please clarify this discrepancy <br />Response to First Adequacy Review Page 49
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.