PERMIT FILE - 7/11/2008, 11:29:45 AM-JWD

Home Browse Search

To avoid any future misunderstandings, please indicate whether any areas that COAG intends to use and revegetate (see 6. B. above) have been identified as being toxic, deficient in plant nutrients, composed of sand, gravel, and cannot feasibly be remedied by chemical treatment, fertilization, replacement of overburden or like measures have been identified. If so, please identify these areas on the map and state which characteristics make these areas eligible for not revegetating. Also state which tests(s) were used to determine this characterization, provide the limiting criteria proposed, and provide the results of said test(s) for DBMS review." Response: COAG Corporation is simply reminding the Division that if COAG Corporation makes the decision to actively mine the site; the DRMS Rules do not require site reclamation for those areas included in the mining application. If the decision is made to not mine the site, the entire area not occupied by shaft closures, storage bins, host house, other previously existing structures, roads and parking areas will be reclaimed according to NRCS specifications and this NOI's reclamation plan. (The storage bins and other onsite structures to be used by COAG Corporation under the NOI belong to the landowner. It is her desire to leave them in place and in good condition, post prospecting activities) e. "It is stated in the last part of the answer to question 6 that "Impacts to the hydrologic balance will be minimal." because" No major aquifers are known to occur beneath the site." A statement from the original Franklin Permit Application of 1983 is used to support this assertion. This statement from the application reads as quoted " Because of construction of the Argo Tunnel many years ago, most of the bedrock at and near the FCM (Franklin Consolidated Mine) has been drained." This statement has never been verified to the knowledge of the DRMS but it is probably a good assumption that the Franklin does drain to the Argo Tunnel. It is also noted that COAG states under the answer to question 7, through is consultant, that "...existing pools of water in the existing workings deeper in the Franklin Mine." will be used for underground exploration activities. These two answers seem to be at odds with one another. Response: The statement concerning the pools of water was also taken from the DRMS Franklin Mine permit file. Until COAG Corporation goes underground at the old Franklin Mine, it cannot verify the statement. (More than likely, the pools referred to are simply puddles as one would normally find in mine workings.) Regardless, COAG Corporation is clarifying that no underground drilling or blasting is being proposed at this time. (However, it may be necessary shoot blocked ore shuts on occasion) All bulk samples will be taken from exist tunnels and stope rubble. Therefore, the proposed prospecting activity will not cause additional contributions of heavy metals to what already exists underground. We therefore request that the Division not require a ground water monitoring plan and five quarters of groundwater sampling under the NOI. If COAG determines that the resource is in fact a viable ore reserve and f des a mining application, it will first contact the Division staff to gain their concurrence as to the ground water monitoring plan and waste rock sampling and analyses. It is known that the ground water from the areas drained by the Argo Tunnel are acidic and carry a high metal load, necessitating the building of a water treatment plant at the mouth of the Argo Tunnel. The DRMS has become the primary regulator of ground water quality at sites under its purview. The DRMS must be protective of ground water quality and ensure that ground water is made no worse by