My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE52512
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE52512
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:56:16 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 3:20:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1997054
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Name
DRAFT HEARING ORDER
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.
/
13
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 />Page 4 <br />27. The new applicationhas substantiallychanged from the original permit application submitted to <br />your division. Agile Stone Sys[ems should have to go through the entire process of an original <br />permit application... <br />28. The hydrology information submitted to the Division is not correct according to our current <br />reseazch. <br />29. The increased size would have an adverse affect which has not been studied in enough depth. <br />30. It does not appeaz at the present time that the applicant has provided the required baseline studies <br />of surface and groundwater acid mine production analysis (if pyrite is present) and operational <br />and reclamation features that will protect surface and ground waters from pollution. <br />31. Another important concern regazds the potential for the local clay to release phosphorus <br />(primarily via sediments) to the Arkansas River system. <br />32. What sediment loading will result from the'ponds? Along these lines, what are the short and long <br />term operation/maintenance/treatment costs associated with these ponds berms? <br />33. How will the applicant replace water lost due to potential evaporation from the groundwater <br />exposed by the mine pit? <br />34. How does the applicant propose to ensure that process waters released into the pits meet all <br />applicable water quality standards, including those designed to protect surface flows that are <br />likely hydrologically connected to the groundwater impacted by the pits? <br />35. What is the projected quality of the process water? <br />36. What will be the impacts to local aquatic life? <br />Issues, In Reference to the Amended Application, to be Heard by the Board, But Were Not <br />Considered by the Division to be Within the Jurisdiction of the Board <br />4. The applicantvolunteered during the Fremont County CUP hearings and was then requested to <br />conduct capacity tests of all adjudicated wells and springs within 1.5 miles of the project permit <br />boundary. Only pump flow tests were conducted. No well capacity testing was done by the <br />permittee. <br />8. I feel the short form #404 is not adequateto provide comprehensiveinformationon the pits affect. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.