|
Burnell, Jim
<br />From: Brown, Sandy
<br />Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 5:30 PM
<br />To: Burnell, Jim
<br />Subject: West EIk PR-10
<br />Hi Jim,
<br />I have finished reading PR-10, the PR-10 PAR and the reviewers memos. Wow, that took awhile, there is a lot of
<br />information there. As I was going through your letter, I realized I probably didn't have the correct version of the PR as
<br />many of your referenced page numbers did not match the text I was reading. i remember you saying MCC had
<br />resubmitted parts of it and I believe I found it on your filing cabinet. I want to check with you to be sure.
<br />In Exhibit 1 MCC lists the directors and officers. Did you have Johanna review this for the AVg and Ownership and
<br />Controllnformation? ~fr~~.,~.~_SF.a ho.a.bPp~ ~amm~~~:cafjrrj 4^'l~ A~~-~M« "~rw1Z~FWSProcesso~{,r~¢
<br />"l '~"" `(~V (GW
<br />It seems to me like some of the questions in your letter were raised by different reviewers and are asked in lwo or three
<br />areas. I'd like to send a well organized letter that clearly identifies each request once and try to avoid duplicating questions
<br />as much as possible.
<br />Will you please review your question 2. I think you're saying that several maps have not been revised to reflect the SOD
<br />permit boundary. All maps specifically required by Rule 2.10 will need to be updated with the correct boundary. Please
<br />check to see if they have. For the others we will ask them to place labels on those maps stating that the permit boundary
<br />has been revised and refer to a source map with the revised permit boundary. (WE will need to have all the maps
<br />rescanned with the label after we propose a decision.)
<br />Exhibit 4, Sources of legal right to enter, has not been updated. Does it need to be?
<br />For the HistoriGArchaeology, does MCC have a commitment in their permit that they will notify SHPO if historic resources
<br />are discovered? If not, we need to be sure they include one. Figure 3, Archaeological Recon. Study Area does not include
<br />the SOD. Do you think it needs to? ~ ~ ~~ w, .~y e~~~{Z~e# ft,,,!
<br />yail Lh~G,~~~4~/ JS oee~~
<br />Do you agree with MCC's conclusions regarding the Rollins SS on page 2.04-48, 2nd paragraph? ~,,,,~ Y R~ (~ -~~N°p
<br />a
<br />1 had page 2.04-51 flagged where they define aquifer. Do you think they should use the definition from our rules? Which
<br />may be the source of the next question-
<br />I'd like you to explain more thoroughly your questions number 19 and 20 regarding the use of the term aquifer. In what /•
<br />way do you want MCC to consider this term? We need to explain what discussions are on-going regarding the actual f~r~
<br />definition and how that will affect the narrative. .z~ ry~l
<br />For the hydrology baseline, did MCC provide all baseline data on the E-seam and the Bowie sandstone as required by '~~t
<br />Rule 2.04.7(1)?. Mike references those in his memo, but it is not clear to me if that has been submitted. _ 4
<br />~~ rl
<br />.~~.~
<br />It seems like we need to acknowledge that MCC installed alluvial wells last summer, but we do not have one year's worth rv`,,,r~°
<br />of baseline data for those alluvial aquifers yet. The revision will need to be updated with all the SOD baseline data before `~UL Y
<br />we can propose a decision as we can't stipulate baseline data collection. P` ~` ~ih.
<br />I could not locate the Upper Dry Fork, Lower Dry Fork and SOM-36 on Table 5. I also think the table is mislabeled. ~ 1
<br />vrar, ,vae~-k ~.tlt~bok+-td~;s G ~.. ~ ~ ~~~. .
<br />Did you locate all the wells on a map? I couldn't find some of them. tti, y.-.D z W ~n ~„~ z"-`'t~`^YI'y"~ -° ~ ~, ~~^^^^"'~
<br />~'o- orviwrteu7f ab, \c{ Tfnn wt.P . o~
<br />1 agree whole heartedly with Kent's comments about submitting the hydro. monitoring plan with PR-10 and not as a lEx~'~ s
<br />separate TR. I had that underlined also! Please give some thought to what kind of monitoring plan you think is needed ~ S;};,,t
<br />We probably need to ask about water depletions for the USFWS. We will need a letter from them for the mine plan
<br />modification. This would go under wildlife. (~ w ~ ll aJd- ~ ~°„wn„~fF k k-~°"' ~N*a.~
<br />7 d~
<br />Did you see the suggestion on page top of page in Exhibit 18B? What do you think? y,~~~
<br />VGf ~"~^wl ~ ~oc~o - Nn...2~t-~'
<br />Did you see the handwritten comment on page 64 of Exhibit 18B? What do you think? 1 ~{e ~ l~~t ~,~ 5,,,,I«<-~
<br />
|