Laserfiche WebLink
Third Adequacy Review 3 5/27/2008 <br />COAG Corporation P-2007-069 <br />standard for ground water quality at a point of compliance (see Rule 3.1.7) or, since it is assumed <br />that the water drains to the Argo Tunnel, receiving stream standards for Clear Creek. Such table <br />value standards or receiving stream standards may be impossible for an operator to meet without <br />a water treatment plant given the nature of baseline conditions at the Franklin Mine as affected by <br />previous mining activity and geologic conditions (the presence of sulfide ores). Therefore, please <br />state what baseline ground water monitoring program will be done at the Franklin Mine before <br />prospecting activities begin. Such ground water monitoring plan must satisfy the requirements of <br />Rule 3.1.7(7). The Division requires at least five quarters of baseline data on inflows and outflows <br />to the mine prior to any disturbance that may affect ground water. <br />7. The potable water section is adequate. See 6. e. above for the part of the answer that <br />indicates that "...existing pools of water in the existing workings deeper in the Franklin Mine." <br />will be used for underground exploration activities. <br />8. Adequate for stockpiles. See comments 6. b., c., and d. above for areas that will be <br />revegetated. <br />9. See comments 6. b., c., and d. above. <br />10. Adequate. <br />From the adequacy answers received by the; DRMS on May 2, 2008: <br />1. The $7,000.00 bond will be returned under separate cover. <br />2. Adequate with the proviso that the DRMS must inspect and approve the shaft closures <br />once installed and before the Notice of Intent can be approved with adequate bond. As an option, <br />of course, COAG could post an adequate bond to cover the DRMS costs associated with building <br />the shaft closures. <br />As a point of clarification, the DRMS apparently was under the impression that the Freighter's <br />Friend shaft was to be used as the ventilation shaft. Past inspections of the site have revealed that <br />the Freighter's Friend shaft has a possibly operable hoist installed whereas the Franklin shaft hoist <br />has been removed. Please clarify which shaft will be used for which purpose. <br />3. See number 2 directly above. <br />4. The answer to this question is closely ;related to the issue briefly stated in the request for <br />clarification under adequacy answers received by the DRMS on March 31, 2008, number 6. e. <br />Please note that Rule 5.1.2 does say, in part, that the operator must specify "the measures to be <br />taken to reclaim any affected land consistent; with the applicable requirements of Rule 3.1. <br />Among the provisions of Rule 3.1 is Rule 3.1:7 pertaining to ground water protection. Also, <br />please note that Rule 5.3.6 requires the prospector to conduct all prospecting "...in such a manner