My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR13427
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
3000
>
APPCOR13427
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:33:41 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:41:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996084
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
3/3/1997
Doc Name
ADEQUACY REVIEW LORENCITO CANYON MINE C-96-084
From
DMG
To
GREYSTONE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
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.
/
45
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
<br />• no discharge values for access road ditches in table <br />• culvert 152+53 missing from table <br />Rule 4.05.10 Undereround Mine Entry & Access Discharee <br />165. Page 2.04-15 states "Water was present th all three wells installed in the sandstone <br />immediately above the Primero" and "...gradient of the potentiometric surface is 29 ft/mi <br />east-southeast." Mine inflow to the Pl/P2 mine(s) is estimated to be 169 gpm combined. <br />Rule 4.05.10(1) requires prevention or control of gravity dischazge from surface entries. <br />What will prevent mine inflows after closure from saturating the P1/P2 backfilled area <br />and finding its way to the Lorencito stream alluvial system? Additionally, page 2.05-103 <br />states "Mine water discharges will result inflows within the drainages which would not <br />have occurred without mining." Does this mean during mining or after mining ceases or <br />both? <br />Rule 4.05.13 Surface and Groundwater Monitoring <br />166. The Division suggests asemi-annual monitoring frequency for the analytical and <br />calculated list coupled with quarterly field visits for surface water sites. <br />167. Why would sites SPAC-1 and SPCC-I be monitored during the first 5 year permit term? <br />It would seem more appropriate to monitor SPJC-1, SPCWC-1, and SPPC-l. Please <br />clazify and/or correct. <br />168. In what quarter of the year will the annual spring sample be taken? Please indicate this <br />information in the permit text. <br />169. Why aze PRGTY-la and PRGTY-2 not included in the alluvial well monitoring table? <br />170. The Division again suggests asemi-annual monitoring frequency for the analytical and <br />calculated list coupled with quarterly field visits for the alluvial wells. <br />171. Are consolidated rock wells actually a cluster of wells for each site completed at different <br />intervals? If so, each individual well should be listed in the monitoring frequency table <br />on page 2.05-109, possibly organized by formation intervals. <br />172. Sites MW-2 and MW-3 being dry in the baseline condition is meaningful. These sites <br />should be monitored annually for water level only to confirm this dry condition prevails. <br />173. The permit text does not state the frequency that stock ponds will be monitored for water <br />level. <br />4.05.18 Stream Buffer Zones <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.