Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2. Ground Water <br />a. Well completion data for all monitored wells (depth of <br />well, perforated interval, casing type, distance form <br />measuring point to land surface, casing diameter, geologic <br />unit monitored, drillers logs). <br />b. Depth-to-water data from all wells monitored. This <br />information is best presented in hydrograph form (time vs. <br />depth). <br />c. Water quantity and quality data from all wells, springs, <br />and seeps monitored. This should include field as well as <br />lab parameters. The tabulated presentation of data should <br />include minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation <br />values for each parameter monitored. <br />3. Discussion <br />a. A comparative discussion of recently collected data versus <br />baseline conditions should be included in the AHR. This <br />narrative will describe the effects, if any, to the <br />local/regional ground and surface water regimes, and how <br />• these effects differ from those projected in the PHC and <br />CHIS sections of the permit applications. Any quality or <br />quantity trends observed should also be discussed. <br />AN ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC REPORT WILL BE SUBMITTED BASED ON THE STANDARD <br />WATER YEAR (OCTOBER 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30). THE REPORT WILL BE <br />5UHMITTED NO LATER THAN FEHRUARY 20 OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR. A <br />STATEMENT REGARDING THE ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC REPORT IS ENCLOSED AND <br />MAY BE SUBSTITUTED DIRECTLY INTO THE PERMIT AS REVISED PAGE <br />4.6-139. <br />F. Pittsburg and Midway should revise the permit to include a <br />discussion of the ground and surface water monitoring program at <br />the Edna Mine. This discussion should include a description of <br />each site, frequency of data collection at each site, type of data <br />collected at each site (depth-to-water and discharge measurements, <br />field parameters, water quality analysis), and all other pertinent <br />aspects of the hydrologic monitoring program. The use of current <br />maps and tables may be benefical to this discussion. <br />P&M BELIEVES THIS COMMENT TO BE A REPEAT OF COMMENT I.A. SEE <br />RESPONSE TO COMMENT I.A. <br />II. Soils - 2.04.9 <br />Information pertaining to the soil studies is located in the original <br />permit application document. The baseline soils information in this <br />document remains adequate since P&M plans on mining lands previously <br />permitted and inventoried. However, the method for determining soil <br />suitability should be revised. <br />