Laserfiche WebLink
C -2010 -089 PARNos. 1- 1A -1B, 2- 2A -2B, 3 <br />New Horizon North Mine Page 18 of 60 <br />13. Under the Present Groundwater Use section WFC states that "Thirty four wells were <br />identified and are located as shown on Map 2.04:7 -8:" It appears that only about 25 wells <br />are shown on this map. Please update the map accordingly. Item resolved in 11Iay -2011 <br />resl)ons e <br />14; The first paragraph at the top of page 13 should be corrected. WFC indicates that done of <br />the wells within a one mile radius of the NHN permit boundary draws its water from the <br />Dakota Formation. Three wells listed on the Table 2.04.7 -4 are indicated as completed in <br />the Dakota Formation. Although these are only monitoring wells that are operated by <br />Montrose County this statement should be clarified. Also in the same paragraph the last <br />sentence should be modified. The Burro Canyon Formation further isolates the Brushy <br />Basin Member of the Morrison Formation, and WFC has illustrated the Burro Canyon <br />Formation on Geologic Cross - Sections A -A' and B -B'. Therefore, it would be appropriate <br />to add the following to the end of the last sentence in the first paragraph of page 13: "... and <br />mudrock of the Burro Canyon Formation." terry resoh,, = ire'11ay -2011 reslwnse. <br />15. On Map 2.04.7 -1, Spoil Springs (SS91 -3) should be added to the legend. Also on this map <br />the 2"d Park Lateral should be designated with a different symbol than the same one used for <br />the natural drainages Glasier, Meehan, and Nygren Draws. <br />,SS­ 1-3 w av a seep in the old highwall and was covered tap when the highwall inas hackfilled <br />in 1992. Ition resolved in Alay -2011 response: <br />16. It is unnecessary to have a Probable Hydrologic Consequences section under 2.04.7, but <br />WFC has included a summary of the PHC in this section. The Division has doted the <br />following inconsistencies. In the last paragraph on page 21, WFC states that "...Recharge <br />from irrigation (the only source of recharge) will continue..." This should be changed to <br />"...Recharge from irrigation (the primary source of recharge) will continue..." Also there is <br />no discussion of the occurrence of spoil springs in this entire section, pages 21 through 24 of <br />2.04.7. <br />The PHC discussion was r°einoved fr°oni, 2.04.7. Itent resolled ill ay -2011 r°e Imnse <br />17. The Division of Water Resources has reviewed the NHN permit application and has <br />provided written comments. The State Engineers Office has expressed several concerns <br />with the project including the following: 1) The potential for exposing groundwater during <br />sediment pond excavation, 2) Permitting requirements for drilling a new domestic /industrial <br />use well and for mine existing monitoring wells, 3) Application for surface water rights and <br />for an augmentation plan, 4) Reporting procedures for well abandonment, and 5) Diversion <br />of the Second Park Lateral Ditch. Please refer to the enclosed comment letter from the <br />Division of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer dated November 23, 2010. <br />Please address each of these concerns and provide a response and amended application <br />materials, if appropriate. <br />Alt1j� -2011 r spa nse accel)teda Please arlso submit a copy gfthe sut face rights and water <br />augmentation tion plan to the Division.for inclusion to the P P when it is receive <br />2.04.7 (2) —Surface Water Infor inatian <br />L In Section 2.04.7 of the permit applications mention is made of Tuttle Draw and Coal <br />Canyon in the regional surface water description and in the site specific surface water <br />