My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-08-21_REVISION - M1980244 (32)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2012-08-21_REVISION - M1980244 (32)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:05:39 PM
Creation date
8/27/2012 11:12:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/21/2012
Doc Name
APPLICATION RESPONSE TO ADEQUACY REVIEW
From
CC&V
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM10
Email Name
TC1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
144
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
mice and voles), ground nesting birds, reptiles and other wildlife species. These rock pile structures will be <br />field engineered during reclamation activities, and the specific locations / approximate sizes are not detailed <br />as part of the final reclamation plan for the Cresson Project. <br />36. Page 4 -8, 2nd and 3rd bullets — The statement that "All precipitation water infiltrating to ground water <br />through MLE2 mine facilities ... will pass by subsurface flow paths through the diatreme ..." and a similar <br />statement in the third bullet, appears inconsistent with the fact that some proposed MLE2 facilities (e.g., <br />East Cresson Mine Wildhorse Extension, north edge of East Cresson Overburden Storage Area, and <br />SGVLF — Adsorption, Desorption and Recovery Plant (ADR) and underdrain ponds) will extend beyond <br />the delineated edge of the diatreme (reference Drawings C -4, C -4a and C -7). Please provide some <br />narrative to correct or substantiate the statements in the second and third bullets. <br />RESPONSE. As presented in more detail in Section 2.5 of Appendix I of Volume H of the Application, the <br />conceptual model of the hydrology of the District is a large diameter "well" (the Diatreme) that collects <br />infiltrating precipitation from the surface of the Diatreme and adjacent portions of the surrounding lower - <br />permeability Precambrian rockmass, with some of the infiltrating water eventually reaching the regional <br />groundwater system that is bisected by the Carlton Tunnel. The proposed MLE2 facilities (e.g., East Cresson <br />Mine Wildhorse Extension, north edge of East Cresson Overburden Storage Area, and SG VLF — Adsorption, <br />Desorption and Recovery Plant (ADR) and underdrain ponds) may extend beyond the delineated edge of the <br />Diatreme (as reference Drawings C -4, C -4a and C -7), but are within the surrounding lower permeability <br />Precambrian rockmass wherein some infiltrating water migrates towards the regional ground water system. <br />37. Page 4 -19, 3rd paragraph — Please elaborate on the last statement the historic mine features have some <br />influence on the current groundwater quality. Is this influence potentially significant? If so, can it be <br />quantified? If not, is it important? <br />RESPONSE. Unavoidably, the Cripple Creek Mining Overlay District ( "CCMOD') is fraught with <br />hundreds of interconnected historic mine features (all underground workings). The impact to ground water, <br />and, for that matter, also surface water quality on a localized and regional basis is virtually impossible to <br />quanta. The fact that many underground workings are located off of CC &V property, but yet still in the <br />CCMOD exacerbates the complexity and feasibility of such an undertaking. Regarding the potential impact <br />significance of historic mine workings on ground water quality, localized influence is likely, but again, <br />quantification would be extremely difficult icult if not all together impossible. The possible importance would be <br />entirely dependent on specific, as found conditions. However from an overall system perspective please refer <br />to the extensive discussion provided in the amendment application. <br />38. Page 5 -5, Table 5 -1 — Should the 7`b row from the bottom refer to reclamation of Arequa Gulch Adsorption, <br />Desorption and Recovery Plant (AGADR) Facilities, not just AGADR? <br />RESPONSE: Yes, the 7th row from the bottom should refer to the reclamation ofArequa Gulch Adsorption, <br />Desorption and Recovery Plant (AGADR) Facilities; a revised Table 5 -1 is included as Attachment 8 to <br />reflect that clarification. <br />39. Page 5 -7, 4d' paragraph — Should the volume of potentially suitable soil in the MLE2 development be 1.9 <br />"million" cubic yards? <br />RESPONSE: Yes, for clarification purposes, the volume ofpotentially suitable soil in the MLE2 development <br />should be approximately 1.9 million cubic yards as discussed on page 5-7, 4th paragraph. As revised, the 7th <br />row from the bottom should refer to the reclamation of Arequa Gulch Adsorption, Desorption and Recovery <br />Plant (AGADR) Facilities; a revised Table 5 -1 is included as Attachment 8 to reflect that clarification. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.