My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-06-01_REVISION - M1980244
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2016-06-01_REVISION - M1980244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:22:56 PM
Creation date
6/6/2016 12:07:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/1/2016
Doc Name
Preliminary Adequacy Review - Hydrology
From
DRMS
To
CC&V
Type & Sequence
AM11
Email Name
TC1
ERR
AME
WHE
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.
/
16
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
Cresson Project – AM-11 Adequacy Review <br />Page 12 <br />May 03, 2016 (Revised May 31, 2016) <br /> <br /> This Table provides a list of the water quality monitoring parameters that are used at <br />least at all compliance sites according to this evaluation. Please also provide a list <br />showing the established numeric protection levels that are used for all <br />compliance monitoring sites (surface and groundwater). The Division <br />understands that different values may be used for each drainage according to its <br />classification; however, this information should be compiled here in AM-11. <br />Figure 2-1 Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring Locations <br /> As mentioned previously, this figure does not appear to show all of the compliance <br />monitoring sites mentioned in the text (9 surface water sites, 17 groundwater sites). <br />Please revise this figure to include locations of all compliance sites. <br /> <br /> Several non-compliance monitoring sites were also discussed in the text (and data <br />provided in Figures 3-1 – 3-6 and 4-1 – 4-22); however, their locations are not shown <br />on this figure or any other figure. Please show either on this figure (differentiating <br />from compliance sites) or on another figure all non-compliance monitoring sites <br />discussed in the text. <br /> <br /> The green text used in this figure to label ground water monitoring sites is very <br />difficult to read and distinguish from the background image. When you revise this <br />figure, please change the color of this text to something more readable. <br /> <br />(VOLUME I OF IV) <br /> <br />EXHIBIT G – WATER INFORMATION <br /> <br />Figure G-1 Groundwater Wells Within 2 Miles of AM-11 Permit Boundary <br /> This figure shows 6-7 groundwater wells located inside the permit boundary labeled <br />as “Other Owner’s”. Who are the owners of these wells? Have you obtained <br />structure agreements for these wells? Additionally, have structure agreements <br />been obtained for all wells located within 200 feet of the AM-11 proposed <br />affected area? <br /> <br /> Are all of the wells shown on the figure and labeled as “CC&V” wells still <br />active? If not, please differentiate active versus abandoned wells on this figure. <br />Are all of the CC&V wells used for monitoring? If so, which ones are <br />compliance wells? Please indicate either on this figure or another figure <br />submitted with this application, which wells are currently utilized as monitoring <br />wells, differentiating compliance wells. <br />Figure G-2 Surface Water Drainages and Spring Locations Within 2 Miles of AM-11 Permit <br />Boundary <br /> This figure shows a spring that appears to be located beneath the AGVLF. Is this <br />correct? If so, which part of the AGVLF overlies this natural spring? Would any
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.