Laserfiche WebLink
.. <br />3. [Par[ialJ The process of examining the suitability of the propaced system fa~ <br />ground water contaimnent is being undenaken in two parts. 77re first pare is the <br />installation and testing of dte wells, the second is the data evahtntion and system <br />design. We concur with the 2-part process, but would like Borne assurance titer <br />acceptance of the first testing phase does not assure acceptance of the systettt <br />design. <br />RESPONSE: See response to James C. Stevens' Comment No. 2 above, and BMR's <br />commitment to provide the information collected from rite well drilling, testing <br />and modelling phase to CDMG. <br />4. (PanialJ We would encourage BMG to evaluate the data collected in the field as <br />the project progresses. if data fionr these wells, and well M-9, cnnnot be <br />reasonably correlated, Borne additional testing may be required. Such additional <br />tests, if required, are nonnatty much easier to conduct while a field crew is still <br />mobilized. <br />RESPONSE: BMR concurs with this comment and the field data that were collected from July <br />20 through 28, 1992 were evaluated in the field. The data were correlatable <br />among the wells, including hydrogeologic interpretations of first water-bearing <br />strata and pump test results. BMR believes that sufficient data were collected <br />during the single field visit to conduct the necessary evaluations. <br />Surface Water Systems <br />1. 7ltere was some discussion of flood plains it: rite ot•igittnl mine penttit, bttt little <br />in rite current docuntenrs. Sortte discussion by BMG as to tivlticlt facilities lie itt <br />die 100-year flood plain, and how such facilities have been etrgin4ered would be <br />helpful in light of the new technical revisions. Sonte review of this irtfanmtion <br />by MLRD, and a statement of their concurrence with the flood plaint designations <br />would also be helpful. <br />RESPONSE: The 100-year flood plain limits were delineated in Battle Mountain's original <br />submittal for permit no. M-88-1 l2 (Exhibit G-8). These flood plain delineations <br />indicated that no BMR facilities were within ttte 100-year floo® plain limits. <br />Additionally, the tailings facility, which is located in asub-basin, is designed to <br />retain the 100-year flood. Therefore, Bl\4R is not aware of any issues related to <br />the 100-year flood plain that have not been addressed in the original CMLRB <br />permit. [We are no[ aware of any additional agency review}. <br />-5- <br />