Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Ralph Lopez - 2 - January 19, 1994 <br />g. Stations SCF-1 and ACF-1 are listed on page 7 of the AHR as <br />needing continuous flow monitoring. What is the basis for <br />this requirement and is it being done for SCF-1? <br />h. Please clarify the monitoring history of SCF-1. What was the <br />baseline period, the deactivated period, and when was the <br />station reactivated? <br />Is the stream in Santistevan Canyon a perrenial stream? <br />Please explain. <br />j. Please include WET testing requirements on page 7 and 8 of <br />the AHR. Also, please include WET testing results in the <br />next AHR. <br />k. What is the status of NE-009? <br />2. Adequacy Responses <br />a. In the operator's letter dated January 5, 1994, mention is <br />made of "valid instantaneous measurements" to explain that no <br />water sampling was available on a certain day. The .Division <br />feels that if water sampling is not available on a certain <br />day, then further attempts must be made on other days to <br />obtain samples. The object of water sampling is to obtain <br />results on a regular schedule. Please provide a description <br />of a water sampling plan that Basin Resources will implement <br />in order to ensure results on a regular basis. <br />b. In the operator's responses to PHC concerns, reference is <br />made to a water quality and quantity study in Exhibit 6 of <br />the Golden Eagie Permit application. However, that study did <br />not consider any impacts from subsidence on the hydrologic <br />system. Please include the effects of subsidence on the <br />surface and groundwater systems in an analysis of the <br />probable hydrologic consequences. Please include recharge <br />capability. Also, please reference Exhibit 6 in the PHC <br />section of the permit application. <br />c. Is it possible to streamline the water monitoring plan to <br />eliminate stations which have sufficient baseline data but <br />are not needed further until undermining begins in that <br />area? Examples are LCS-l, WCS-1, and CHC-l. <br />d. The Division feels that Section 2.05.6(6) of the permit <br />application needs better organization. Although the required <br />data may be in the permit application, it is scattered <br />throughout the sections and is not referenced in <br />Section 2.05.6(6). <br />e. Based on our meeting of January 14, 1994, it was determined <br />that an aquifer in this area would be considered a renewable <br />