Laserfiche WebLink
<br />J <br /> <br />appears that the well that is being proposed for monitoring <br />the Rollins Sandstone, DH-34B, is located neither upgradient <br />nor downgradient of mining. The well may not record an effect <br />from a representative portion of the mine since the well is <br />located in the extreme northwest corner of the permit area, <br />while the bedrock, as stated on page 2.04-14 of the permit <br />application, dips to the northeast.Also, referring to your <br />letter dated April 11, 1995, concerning the April 7, 1995 <br />meeting between you and the Division, the Division's <br />recommendation was that one or two addition wells completed in <br />the Rollins Sandstone may be needed to properly monitor this <br />aquifer. Please explain how one well, especially at this <br />location, can adequately monitor the effects of mining on the <br />Rollins Sandstone. <br />5. Referring to Map 10, Upper Perched Water Zone Mesa Verde <br />Formation, and Map 09, Hydrologic Monitoring Location Map, <br />there do not appear to be any monitoring wells that are <br />upgradient or downgradient of the upper perched water zone. <br />All of the monitoring wells are located within the perched <br />water zone itself, near the upgradient side, and are clustered <br />in the southwest portion of the permit area. Are there any <br />wells that could monitor this zone and are downgradient of the <br />mining area? Also, several of the wells that are being <br />proposed to monitor the upper perched water zone have <br />extensive lengths of slotted casing. For example, the slotted <br />casing of well DH-49 is 216.5 feet in length. Is the upper <br />perched water zone that extensive vertically, or will these <br />wells pick up more ground water than from just the upper <br />perched water zone? <br />/6. Referring to your letter dated April 11, 1995, concerning the <br />April 7, 1995 meeting between you and the Division, the <br />Division's recommendation was that three samples be taken from <br />each bedrock well for the full suite analyses. However, on <br />page 2.05-72 of the permit application, it is stated that <br />semi-annual full suite monitoring will be performed for the <br />bedrock monitoring wells. Please explain why the Division's <br />recommendation was not followed. <br />V 7. Referring to your letter dated April 11, 1995, concerning the <br />April 7, 1995 meeting between you and the Division, the <br />Division's recommendation was that there should be monthly <br />monitoring of field parameters for the springs and seeps. On <br />page 2.05-72 of the permit application, only quarterly field <br />parameter sampling is proposed. Please explain why the <br />Division's recommendation was not followed. <br />8. Referring to your letter dated April 11, 1995, concerning the <br />April 7, 1995 meeting between you and the Division, the <br />Division's recommendation was that ephemeral drainages should <br />be monitored for field and full suite parameters. Apparently, <br />2 <br />