Laserfiche WebLink
:~ <br />III IIIIIIIIIiIII III <br />C c~rp~tus <br />y`'; Orchard Palley <br />Cyprus Orchard Valley Mine <br />P.O. Box 1299 <br />Paonia, CO 81428 <br />Phone: 303-527-4135 <br />Fax: 303-527-2234 <br />December' 17, 1993 <br />Mr. Kent A. Gorham <br />Reclamation Specialist ~•; .;, SEC zO 1983 <br />Division of Minerals and Geology , <br />1313 Sherman Street, Roan 215 . ,, ~ <br />Denver, CO 80203 ` ~r'~~ <br />RE: PERMTP NO. C-81-038; RESPONSE ~ CDMG 1992 ANNUAL HYDROLOGY, MINE INFL047, <br />AND SUBSIDENCE REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS <br />Dear Mr. Gorham: <br />'The following information is submitted in response to your camnents regarding the <br />1992 Annual Hydrology, Mine Inflow, and S~tsidence Report as detailed in your <br />cammrnication of November 17, 1993. The responses correspond to the numbered <br />canmients in your letter. <br />Annual Hydrology Report <br />General Car¢rents <br />1) COVCC has not yet formally added sites UERC and L~ERC to Map No. 4-1. <br />COVCC is currently requesting the Division, throuc~ TR-24, to allow <br />monitoring at these locations to be discontinued. Harever, if the <br />Division feels these monitoring sites need to be designated on Map <br />No. 4-1 regardless of their current monitoring status, COVCC will <br />make the required additions to Map No. 4-1 and sutmit the changed <br />map as a minor revision. For the 1992 AHR's, NVCC revised the <br />copies of Map No. 4-1 sul~nitted with the AHR's to include the <br />locations of UERC and L.ERC. These stations should appear above and <br />below the West Mine on East Roatcap CreeJc. <br />2) Site MW-1 is located as the northernmost well in the series of MW <br />wells at the stockpile and loadout area depicted on Map No. 8-3. <br />MW-2 is the middle well aryl MW-3 is the southernmost well. WVCC <br />will, as soon as possible, revise Map No. 8-3 to irdicate these well <br />locations. <br />3) Figure 16 is erroneous. The unit indication (umhos/can) is <br />consistent with the other figures presented, however the scale is <br />wrong. A corrected Figure 16 is provided with this submittal. <br />4) The figures submitted in the 1992 AHR represent field readings of <br />conductivity. A review of the stations identified by the Division <br />indicates there is a lack of consistency between field readings and <br />