My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1992-06-24_REVISION - M1988112 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1988112
>
1992-06-24_REVISION - M1988112 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2021 6:54:56 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:48:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/24/1992
Doc Name
REVIEW OF BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE COSTILLA CNTY CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
From
HYDROKINETICS INC
To
MLRD
Type & Sequence
TR9
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
<br />iii iiuiiiiiiiiiiii <br />N <br />12975 W. 24th PI. <br />Golden, (Applewood) Colorado, 80401 <br />(303)237-8865 <br />June 23, 1992 <br />Dr. James A. Pendleton <br />Technical and Scientific Coordinator <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 89203 <br />RECEIVED <br />. UN 2 4 1992 <br />Recl mined ~~nd <br />ation pn,;slon <br />RE: Review of Battle Mountain Gold Documents on Behalf of the <br />Costilla County Conservancy District <br />Dear Mr. Pendleton: <br />We have received technical revisions 8 and 9 to the Battle <br />Mountain Gold mine permit. These include the Ground Water <br />Monitoring Plan Modification, and the Surface Water end Ground <br />Water Containment Plans. Since these documents are inteY-related, <br />comments are being submitted jointly. <br />GROUND WATER SYSTEMS <br />We generally believe that the process proposed to confirm the <br />rate and direction of ground water flow down gradient from the <br />tailings area is suitable. The well locations are seasonably <br />situated for the purposes for which they are intended. It is <br />unclear from the text if the existing well M-9 is to be pump <br />tested. We would encourage testing of this well also, if it is not <br />anticipated, so drawdown data from the two new wel],s may be <br />recorded during its pumping. This should assist in ass@ssing any <br />anisotropy in the aquifer. Also, there is no information in the <br />documents to suggest what pumping rates are being anticipated for <br />the tests, or how long the tests are to be conducted. Short term <br />"step tests" conducted on the wells prior to initiatipn of the <br />continuous discharge tests would be helpful in defining these <br />parameters. In any event, tests should be of adequate dutation and <br />conducted at adequate discharges to allow a reasonable <br />interpretation of aquifer permeability to be developed within the <br />full area between the three wells, and to define any boundary <br />conditions which may exist. The tests should also be of adequate <br />duration to overcome any delayed yield effects which may occur in <br />the aquifer. <br />The process of examining the suitability of the proposed <br />system for ground water containment is being undertaken in two <br />Ground Water Hydrology Engineering Geology Geophysics Geotechnical Consultants <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.