REV106661 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J. E. STOVER & ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 60340 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506 PHONE: (970) 245-4101, FAX 242-7908 MINE ENGINEERING MINE RECLAMATION GIVIL ENGINEERING CONST. MANAGEMENT June 8, 2006 Dan Mathews Division of Minerals and Geology 101 South 3rd Suite 301 Grand Junction. CO 81501 6'9~1wE~~~® JUN 12 2006 Giuisioa of Miaerals and Geology Re: CAM MINING LLC, Munger Canyon Mine Application for a Technical Revision Permit No. C-81-020 Dear Mr. Mathews: The DMG's AHR adequacy review letter for McClane Canyon Mine, dated April 21, 2006 requested additional information for McClane Canyon Mine. Since the mines are in close proximity, a portion of the information requested from the Division applies to both mines. So, on behalf of CAM MINING LLC, the following amended data for Munger Canyon Mine are provided. Responses to AHR 2005 Adeauacv Review 6) DMG -The baseline groundwater data for the Alluvial Wells No. 1 through No. 6 is presented in the McClane permit in Tables 4.4-1 through 4.4-5. There appears to be some baseline data missing or possibly it was never collected. The current minimum requirements for baseline groundwater information are given in Rule 2.04.7 (1). No data are given in Table 4.4-1 through 4.4-5 for Alluvial Well No. 3 (possibly dry), and iron and manganese analyses are not provided for Alluvial Well Nos. 5 and 6. No baseline data could be located for newer wells GW-7 and GW-8. DMG -There is also uncertainty as to which of the original alluvial wells (for which baseline data has been provided) correspond to the wells in the current approved program. This needs to be clarified in the permits. In the Munger permit, Table 2.5-1 lists groundwater monitoring site numbers and corresponding well numbers but this does not clear up the confusion regarding which of the °GW' wells were monitored during the baseline data program. For wells in the approved program, d is unclear if Alluvial Well No.s 1 and 6 correspond to G W-1 and GW-6, respectively. Well GW-3 appears to correspond to Alluvial Well No. 2. CAM -The alluvial wells are confusing since they are not discussed in detail in the permit, and there are no completion diagrams for them. Some of the alluvial wells are located close to the groundwater monitoring wells, but they are not the same. For example, AW-6 was near GW-3. However, when you compare baseline data for the two, they are remarkably different, GW-3 conductivity is 5,000+, AW-6 is 1,250. A double asterisk was added to Tables 4.4-1 thru 4.4-5 stating the AW do not equal GW monitoring wells. Table 2.5-1 is replaced with new Table 4.4. DMG - To clarify these discrepancies, the Division recommends that a new appendix be inserted into each permit or that the existing documents be amended with updated information succinctly presenting the approved groundwater monitoring programs. The nomenclature for each well should be clearly identified and the corresponding baseline data, drill logs and well completion information provided. The water sample location map (Figure 2.3-5) should be updated accordfnglyand ifappropriate a groundwatercontourmap should be