2016-06-01_REVISION - M1980244 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cresson Project – AM-11 Adequacy Review Page 7 May 03, 2016 (Revised May 31, 2016) model Cell 2. At that time, the geochemical model should be updated accordingly.” Do you intend to provide this updated information to the Division when it is available? Attachment 4 – Ground Water Flow Model / Prepared: February 27, 2012 / Adrian Brown 7.1 Carlton Tunnel Flow  Page 2: The Pre-mining Carlton Tunnel Flow is listed as 1,691 gpm. This is the value that was used for calibration of the Finite Difference Hydraulic Model. Is this value correct? 8.0 MLE-2 Analysis  Page 3: The table provided under this section does not appear to include revised flow values for facilities under AM-11. Would adding these values change the results of this model? APPENDIX 2 – HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION, CC&V / DECEMBER 2015 2 – CC&V Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Program  Page 3: The text states “approximately 9 surface water monitoring locations and 17 ground water monitoring locations are considered compliance sites”. Further down, the text states “the compliance locations for current surface water and ground wate r monitoring discussed in this report are shown on Figure 2-1”. However, Figure 2-1 appears to only show locations for 6 surface water monitoring sites, and 13 ground water monitoring sites. Please revise Figure 2-1 to include, at a minimum, all compliance monitoring sites. 3 – Wilson Creek, Bateman Creek, Theresa Gulch 3.1 Current Conditions  Page 4: The text states that the Wilson Creek drainage is shown on Figure 1-1. However, this drainage is not labeled on Figure 1-1. Please revise Figure 1-1 to label this drainage.  Page 4: The text indicates that multiple EMPs may exist for the Wilson Creek drainage. However, Figure 1-1 appears to show only EMP-006. Is EMP-006 the only EMP associated with the Wilson Creek drainage?  Page 4: The text states that the North Fork of Wilson Creek (Theresa Gulch) is shown on Figure 1-1. However, this drainage is not labeled on Figure 1-1 as either North Fork of Wilson Creek or Theresa Gulch. Please revise Figure 1-1 to label this drainage. 3.1.1 Amendment 11  Page 4: The text states “The activities associated with AM-11 do not propose to construct new or expand existing facilities in the Wilson Creek drainage” and “the EMPs will continue to operate as currently permitted”. However, as shown on Plate 15 Hydrology Impact – Surface Mining, AM-11 operations are to include expanding the Main Cresson Mine southward to create the South Cresson pit. Could these