Laserfiche WebLink
possibly provide the amount of water or affected water quality observed at the toe seep. <br />There is simply not enough acid generating material, or soluble metals, or water <br />absorption capacity within the waste rock to be able to produce the observed conditions. <br />There simply has to be another source of water ALREADY affected by geologic <br />formation contact. It is recommended that DRMS revisit the site conditions to discuss <br />these points. <br />COMMENT #2: Summary of DRMS's Concerns: This comment highlights the need to develop <br />a well that will tap into the fractured rhyolite formation that is theorized to be a significant <br />portion of the flows observed at the toe seep. <br />RESPONSE: We agree with this recommendation (please note the Hydrologic Report <br />identifies this need within the Conclusions and Recommendations). A well was indeed <br />planned to be drilled to the north of the portal, however the installation was affected by <br />the abrupt transition of mine operators. It was theorized that weep-holes from the <br />underground drilling efforts may also serve the same purpose; however most all of the <br />exploration holes were dry. As a result, the Hydrologic document recognizes this data <br />gap, relied upon the next best available information (rhyolite solids extraction analysis) <br />and recommended that further study be pursued. <br />COMMENT #3: Summary of DRMS's Concerns: DRMS is concerned that the seep is `merely a <br />coincidence with the geologic contact' and that all of the seep discharge that is emerging is <br />unaffected geochemically by loading from the waste rock. <br />RESPONSE: We do not discount that water contact with the waste rock at the toe does <br />not contribute some of the water quality concerns. We have strived to prove that there <br />must be other water sources as water contact with the waste rock can not account for a) <br />the flow observed, and b) the water quality conditions of the toe seeps. It is a physical <br />impossibility for the toe seep flow to be entirely comprised of `waste rock related/contact <br />water' (refer to response provided in above comments. If the water were to be entirely <br />the result of the mine, and/or water absorbed into the waste rock, then the waste rock pile <br />would have washed out long ago. The cumulative flows observed this past year provided <br />the first observable evidence that other sources must be present. The 2008 setting <br />provided a unique glimpse of this complex system because of the high snow <br />accumulation, and the severed Deadman Gulch contribution pathway. In the absence of <br />the Deadman Gulch flows (which were captured in the geotextile channel), the toe seep <br />flows had to have been the result of other sources. At the time of the significant toe seep <br />flows, the underground conditions were virtually dry (as observed by on-site agency <br />personnel: Kenny McDaniel and Dave Lazorchak). The physical, observable evidence <br />indicating that other, significant sources have to be associated with the toe seep flows. <br />3