Laserfiche WebLink
Permit Revision Adequacy Comment Response <br />November 30, 2004 <br />Page 12 of 24 <br />lit. On page 2.OS-149 it is emphasized that 9S% of any flow lost from springs will not be lost to the <br />water balance of the North Fork, but it should be noted that any water would be lost to the <br />habitat. <br />MCC Response: The text was revised. <br />63. On page 2.05-190, in the discussion of the water-bearing faults, please discuss the orientation <br />of these faults. If the faults are basically vertical, there is very little probability of encountering <br />the faults through surface drilling or, if they have been encountered, please note if they have <br />contained water. <br />MCC Response: MCC addressed with new text. <br />64. On page 2.05-192, please discuss whether any surface impacts were noted that could have been <br />related to the BEM and the 14HG faults. <br />MCC Response: MCC addressed with new text. <br />65. On page 2.OS-194, figure 23 shows mine water inflow data up to the major fault inflows in <br />1996. Please update the plot to include the most recent year for which data are available <br />(presumably 2003.) <br />MCC Response: Figure 23 updated and recreated, supporting text edited. <br />66. In the discussion of "time to fill" (pages 2.OS-193 to 197), please carry out the calculations in <br />the text. It's not cleaz how the final results were obtained and calculations done by DMG <br />reviewers did not achieve the same results quoted in the text. <br />MCC Response: Updated with example calculations and new inflow rates. <br />67. On page 2.OS-197, the fourth line has a minor typographical error. Please correct. <br />MCC Response: Typo corrected. <br />68. On pages 2.OS-190 and 220, it is relevant in a discussion of downgradient mine workings that <br />the Sanborn Creek Mine is downgradient of the B-seam and probably of the proposed Box <br />Canyon sump. Please add the Sanborn Creek Mine to the discussion. <br />MCC Response: MCC added new text and discussion regarding faults and the Sanborn <br />Mine. <br />69. On page 2.OS-222 MCC discusses the potential for mining-related impact on groundwater from <br />acid leachate concluding that there is no potential. After years of mining and monitoring, MCC <br />should be able to discuss groundwater quality from existing data that would add greatly to the <br />discussion. This is an important issue relating to Rule 4.OS.13 (1) and bears on decisions <br />regazding selection of appropriate "points of compliance" for groundwater monitoring. Please <br />