REP38544 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.'.. Thomas C. Anderson May 20, 1998 Page 2 5. Response accepted. OMI has adequately explained the apparent error in reading and recording measurements from the flow meter. 6. Response accepted, OMI is monitoring the springs as required. 7. Response accepted, OMI has added a downstream site, NF-3, to monitor any mining related impacts to the North Fork. 8. Response accepted. If the alluvium of the North Fork of the Gunnison River is adversely impacted, then this would ultimately show up as an impact to the North Fork of the Gunnison River. Sanborn Creek Mine will continue to monitor North Fork of the Gunnison River surface water monitoring stations and utilize this data to determine the impacts to the river, if any. 9. No response was required. 10. Response accepted. Our experience with operators of other large sites with extensive monitoring plans has been that the requested information was readily available and could easily be forwarded to the Division. However, it would appeaz that submittal of the requested information would be especially burdensome for OMl, so the Division will not require it. 11. Response accepted. It is not necessary to present the Prediction of Hydrologic Consequences with each annual report. The Division is requiring that OMI discuss any apparent trends in the data. and whether or not the trends are in line with predictions. If the trends aze inconsistent with the PHC, OMI would need to provide an explanation for the inconsistency. This is the case with Questions 2, 3, 4 and 5, which were posed to OMI because the Division did not believe that this type of discussion was adequately presented in the 1996 AHR. 1997 AHR 1. OMI did a good job in collecting and reporting the required monitoring data in accordance with the approved plan, however; minor deviations are noted for the frequency of data collection. As with previous yeazs the operator did a very good job at collecting and presenting mine inflow data for 1997. These data are presented as a one time per year measurement with flow rates and locations of inflow shown on the Mine Inflow Map. When combined with previous years data, a duration of inflow can be estimated and tracked. 2. Quarterly water level measurements as required by the approved monitoring plan were not collected for well TC-1 throughout the entire year. On page 9, OMI states that well TC-1 is under pressure so water elevation in the Rollins Sandstone can not be determined. The Division understands that well TC-l is completed in the Rollins Sandstone which is considered a confined aquifer. Although the water level probably rises above the level of