ENFORCE21491 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

... i Mr. Dean Massey Mr, Richard Mills April 18, 1980 Pages 2 7. ViR[I~8 (1o C4= (.~ Yln.y !(l, !'~"/iG~ ~lLu KL.F~l: WC(,t•u (.;Lp1. G~1l~Cr'~~LCL 'f3L(•i._.~~~':I IYL-~ L1r~~L YYtC .._LJLJL.. r., ii-.r NL(~" T ann adc~sing inn= iz EL3y ~ possinle ~ avoin ground water monitoring if it can be shopn! that the mina i.d "p~~arar~)!:~ w1~a')] ?h~Va any ))~P'?))~') ~Y C63i'~~r11i'b~4'.q' d'c'~4'~~~t~s'd': '1~t]'~~ s'A4~I'b 6b'f~es~`~6`A'~ti~li'Ee' also requested discussion of some comments made by the Colorado Division of Water Resources and requested that the consultant deal with the requirements of the interim regs as they applied to the mine. 3. Under date of May 18, 1978 CDM wrote to the MLRB asserting that the mining operation in fact was above any "perched or continuous aquifer" on the basis of some preliminary drilling which had been done and because of a discussion with a Virgil Stoaks, as well as topographic analysis of the base line of any cut with the surface of Grassy Creek. This correspondence also discussed the requirements of the Colorado Division of Water, Resources. The correspondence did not specifically state a position of the mine operator with respect to ground water or suface water monitoring. 4. The same correspondence of May 18, 1978 also contained a six page and very simplified "statement of compliance" with the Interim Regs. When discussing the Regs relating to hydrology, assertions were made as to lack of impact upon the acquifers and as to our expectation that there would be no surface water run-off from the disturbed I areas. Based on these assertions, clear statements were made in this submittal that there would be no measurement of surface water discharges, nor any • form of surface water monitoring. In addition, on the assertion that ground water infiltration rates were nominal and that a Randy Overton of the MLRB had discussed ground water data with Ron Shiff of , the Colorado Division of Water Resources, the decision was made that there was such small impact on the underground water that no ground water , monitoring would be required. 5. Under date of May 30, 1978 the MLRB advised the company that its permit had been approved on May 25, 1978 subject to an agreement on the part of the company to submit technical revisions as may be necessary.