My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-09-09_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2010089
>
2011-09-09_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:43:02 PM
Creation date
9/12/2011 11:04:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2010089
IBM Index Class Name
APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE
Doc Date
9/9/2011
Doc Name
Preliminary Adequacy Review No. 2
From
DRMS
To
Western Fuels Association, Inc
Email Name
SB1
MLT
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.
/
25
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
C- 2010 -089 PAR No. 2 <br />New Horizon North Mine <br />9- Sep -2011 <br />Page 23 of 25 <br />9. Response accepted. <br />10. There is very little discussion or analysis of Coal Creek Canyon. Please update Section <br />2.05.6(3) with a complete analysis of potential impacts to Coal Canyon resulting from the <br />potential for spoil spring discharge to Meehan Draw which flows to Coal Creek Canyon and <br />ultimately discharges to the San Miguel River. The analysis should provide predictions for <br />TDS concentrations and flow information for the potential impacts to Coal Canyon. <br />DRMS: WFC indicates that 2.05.6(3) was updated with a discussion of the effects on Coal <br />Canyon, but there does not appear to be any additional discussion or analysis for Coal <br />Canyon. Table 2.05.6(3) -2 is referenced on page 28 regarding impacts to flow in Coal <br />Creek, but there is no flow or water quality information on Table 2.05.6(3) -2 for Coal Creek <br />Canyon. Please clarify this discrepancy and update the PHC with coal creek canyon <br />information as originally requested. <br />11. Response accepted. <br />12. Response accepted. <br />13. Response accepted. <br />14. Section 3), Impact of Spoil Material on Groundwater Flow and Recharge, beginning on page <br />14 again minimally discusses springs tributary to Tuttle Draw and springs tributary to <br />Meehan Draw. The discussion for Tuttle Draw should clearly identify what the predicted <br />flow and TDS concentrations will be for the future spoil springs that may occur. Sections 3 <br />and 5 of the PHC (pages 14 through 22) need to be updated accordingly with predicted TDS <br />and flow rate information for springs tributary to Meehan Draw and any impacts to Coal <br />creek Canyon. <br />DRMS: There still is insufficient discussion and information pertaining to potential impacts <br />to Coal Canyon. Table 2.05.6(3) -2 has a shaded space provided for Coal Canyon predicted <br />flow and quality but information otherwise provided. Coal Canyon is adjacent to the mining <br />area and should be discussed. Please update Section 2.05.6 -3 with the probable hydrologic <br />consequences to Coal Canyon. <br />15. Response accepted. <br />16. Response accepted. <br />17. Response accepted. <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 />DRMS: Meehan draw has been added to the PHC discussion and analysis. However, there <br />is still no discussion or analysis for Coal Canyon. See items 10 and 14, above. <br />19. Response accepted. <br />20. Response accepted. <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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.