Laserfiche WebLink
Permit Revision No. 5 - PAR 2 <br />July 5, 1994 <br />purposes. <br />Jumbo Mountain B-seam <br />2. The legal documentation for right-of-entry to access the lands <br />for purposes of collecting monitoring data is acceptable. No <br />further response is required. <br />Surface and Ground Water Monitoring (2.05.6(3)(iv) and <br />Protect-ion of Hydrologic Balance (2.05.6) <br />1. Table 78 and the discussions on page 2.05-146 were made based <br />on a mine plan that did not include the Jumbo Mountain Lease; <br />and therefore, should be updated. In addition, page 2.05-146 <br />discusses Map 62, which shows the life of mine mineable area <br />in the B seam and the estimated inflows are based on the <br />mineable area shown on the map. This map does not include <br />Jumbo Mountain. MCC should provide calculations based on <br />current data and projected inflows to show that the <br />inflow estimates in Table 78 for the B-seam will no <br />the addition of <br />increase in mine <br />could cumulative <br />inflows the more <br />mine and into the <br />question. <br />the <br />inflo <br />Ly aff <br />often <br />North <br />worst case <br />t change by <br />reserves <br />~s by mining the Jumbo Mountain <br />>_ct the North Fork; i.e. - the <br />Page 5 <br />An <br />lease <br />more <br />water has to be discharged from the <br />Fork. MCC should revisit the original <br />2. MCC should revisit the original question, as an inadequate <br />response was given. <br />MCC should revisit the original question, as an inadequate <br />response was given. <br />Subsidence (2.05.6(6)) <br />1. The Division maintains there are renewable resource lands and <br />structures within the proposed permit area. Pipeline, ponds, <br />stock tanks and cabins are considered structures under the <br />most limited definition of a structure. Discussion of the <br />possible impacts and mitigation of springs in a cover letter <br />is not acceptable. MCC should make mitigation plans part of <br />the permit text. <br />2. The Division believes that photogrammetric methods are <br />plausible; however, MCC made exactly this proposal in 1985. <br />After a year of attempts to implement such a system, because <br />of Division of Wildlife restrictions to photogrammetric <br />targets that might frighten eagles, and inaccuracy related to <br />