Laserfiche WebLink
approximate surface elevation of the landscape is in excess of 8400 feet MSL. It is therefore <br />evident from the enclosed maps that there does not appear to be any direct down gradient surface <br />connection with historic workings at level 9 or below. We have therefore not provided any <br />information on openings. <br />From COAG Corporation's third adequacy review, July 8, 2008, it states in part: <br />"e. `It is stated in the last part of the answer to question 6 that "Impacts to the hydrologic balance <br />will be minimal." because" No major aquifers are known to occur beneath the site." A statement <br />from the original Franklin Permit Application of 1983 is used to support this assertion. This <br />statement from the application reads as quoted" Because of construction of the Argo Tunnel <br />many years ago, most of the bedrock at and near the FCM (Franklin Consolidated Mine) has <br />been drained." This statement has never been verified to the knowledge of the DRMS but it is <br />probably a good assumption that the Franklin does drain to the Argo Tunnel.' <br />Response: "... Regardless, COAG Corporation is clarifying that no underground drilling or <br />blasting is being proposed at this time. (However, it may be necessary to shoot blocked ore shuts <br />on occasion.) All bulk samples will be taken from existing tunnels and stope rubble. Therefore, <br />the proposed prospecting activity will not cause additional contributions of heavy metals to what <br />already exists underground." <br />Based on the above analysis, there are no known down gradient surface openings associated with <br />COAG Corporation's proposed bulk sampling area. In addition, given the intended method of <br />sampling, that the spring/seep survey shows no discharges to the surface and thus the likely <br />relative dry nature of the workings, it is unlikely that there will be any measureable degradation <br />of water quality down gradient. As committed to in Adequacy Response #4, COAG Corporation <br />will take pre and post bulk sampling water quality samples, where possible. <br />Question #3-"Applicant has proposed the installation of removable shaft covers before <br />commencement of prospecting activities to avoid the necessity of posting financial warranty for <br />shaft safeguarding. Applicant must provide verification that these structures have been installed <br />to the approval of the Division, not merely a commitment that they will be, before the NOI can <br />be approved. Applicant should refer to the document `General Bid Specifications' for guidelines <br />on how to install shaft covers that can be used for temporary access and later converted to <br />permanent covers." <br />Response: This requirement appears contrary to DRMS policy and regulations. Please see <br />C.R.S. 34-32-117 (4)(b)(I). COAG Corporation will bond to make the closures permanent. <br />Permanent covers should be considered a reclamation requirement, as such, it is sufficient for the <br />applicant to bond for such structures in the event the applicant/operator defaults on its <br />reclamation obligation. COAG Corporation will satisfy the issues raised by the OAIM as to <br />webbing and grating, if it is unable to do so prior to NOI issuance, it will bond for any additional <br />corrections to the structures. Regardless, COAG Corporation will correct any deficiencies as to <br />grating and cross webbing as soon as it can make arrangements with a qualified company or <br />individual and weather conditions allow.