My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL39081
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL39081
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:58:37 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 9:59:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/18/1994
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING ROBERT KRASSAS LETTERS OF 02/22/94 & 02/25/94 & JEFF DESAUTELS
From
DMG
To
DAN HERNANDEZ
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
-2- <br />Question No. 1 (continued) <br />Under Rule 2.05.5(2)(a), reclamation plans for underground mines are required to provide <br />information pertaining to 'the proposed use following reclamation of the land to be affectedy all <br />surface operations and facilities within the permit area' (emphasis added), not 'of the land within the <br />permit arra'. In other words, maps submitted pursuant ro 2.05.5(2)(c) and 2.10.1(3) don't have to <br />identify the post-mining land users of all land within a permit boundary, only the post-mining land <br />uses of the reclaimed surface disturbances. <br />In We case of underground mines where the surface disnubance area and permit area are small and <br />relatively equal, apost-mining land use map probably would have a permit boundary on it. In the <br />case of the Golden Eagle Mine, however, the surface disturbance area is approximately 59 acres, and <br />the permit area is approximately 9,1X8 acres. Maps idwtifying the Golden Eagle permit boundary o0 <br />a single map are preparod at a 1" = 1,000' scale. At this scale, the surface disturbance arras are too <br />small to have their various post-reining land uses ideaGfied. the current approved post-mining land <br />use map is preparod st a 1" =200' scale, which better identifies We various proposed uses. This <br />map is being updated as pert of our mview to include the surface distu:bsnces associated with various <br />airehafts and degas wells, and their associated accesv roads. <br />The next question, concerning Mr. Krassa'e comments in Paragraph No. 5, azkod who did the CHIA, who <br />reviewed We CFIIA, and was the CfQA right? <br />Initial assessments of the PHC and CHIA were done by Kent Gotham and myself. 'Ibis involved a <br />review of the CHIA approvod with the 1989 permit revision that addressed longwall mining north of <br />the Purgstoire River, and the PHC submitted with the 1994 permit renewal application. Following <br />the initial assessment, it wav determined that the 1994 PHC for Golden Eagle needed additional <br />information before the rem+~ning CHIA work could be completed. Upon submittal of the additional <br />hydrologic data requested in Stipulation No. 67, the remaining CFIIA will be completed by Kest and <br />myself Dave Berry has requested the opportunity to review the CIQA work due to the overlying <br />landoaver's concerns. <br />'Ihe next question pertained to Mr. Krassa's comments in Paragraph No. 6, regarding whether the operator <br />has or needs additional hydrologic data from the Rancho Escondido area. <br />Baseline ground water information for longwall mining on the north side of We Purgatoirz River was <br />provided with the 1989 permit revision. This data was derived from one water sell within the permit <br />area and six water wells outside the permit area. These seven wells are within one mile of current <br />mining. <br />Additional water monitoring wells have been proposed by Basin Resources. Basin has discussed with <br />Raton West the possibility of usirtg existing wells within the Rancho Escondido area. Basin has also <br />discussed using existing exploration wells outside of the Rancho Escondido area, but within the permit <br />area, as well as drilling new holes within the permit area. As the operator haz yU to finalize the <br />these new monitoring plans,tt is not clear what the need for them is. However, az Basin has <br />proposed them, it would appear they would be used to further monitor any potential drawdown in <br />groundwater levels between the mine end Rancho Escondido, az well as further monitor any potential <br />changes in groundwater chemistry. <br />the next question requested we ask Mr. Krassa for evidence verifying his comments in Paragraph No. 7 that <br />several maps are incorrectly platted. <br />At the February 23, 1994 meeting, Mr. Carl Gerity, representing Raton West, Presented evidence <br />that a discrepancy existed in the plotting of surface and underground features on a couple of maps. <br />In a letter dated February 24, 1994, Mr. Desautel, representing the operator, stated Utat the section <br />comers on one map have been misplot[ed, and ffial the operator waz investigating the matter. We <br />have been informed by telephone that the operator has discovered the plotting error end will be <br />submiaing a corrected map soon. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.