2013-10-18_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014

Home Browse Search

11/17/2014 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: 1910AHR missing Calcium, Magnesium, Manganese, Sodium and Iron We will try to coordinate responses as much as possible. 1. We are all sending individual letters to EFCI to keep the pond for livestock and wildlife and drainage ditches and road dated Oct 15, 2013. 2. Following a conference call, I am writing to Gary Curtis Abandoned Mines to request that he consider reclamation of the Vento Mine portal. It is along Magpie Creek and Kent noted that major pullutents (manganese, magnesium, iron were not tested for in his memo to EF in 1996. 1 do not know if there were any other water samples after that. Since the DRMS has approved the Diversion of Magpie Creek remain as is What TR was that or how did that occur? I want to know if the pollution will be greater from the old mines or less. Also Magpie Creek Diversion has flooded the Vento office building so it also threatens that structure. 3. 1 requested that Well 23 be placed on the agenda and I am asking that it be placed on the agenda when TR40 is heard before the Board. The basis for this request is MW23 had higher levels or manganese, iron and sulfate in the 2011 testing. Was it noted by Kent in the 2012 Annual Hydrology Review? We quoted MCL levels and now know that mines have to meet Secondary Drinking Water Standards. The 2011 water tests showed higher levels of manganese and iron when combined causes severe problems, like Parkinson like symptoms in older people and neurobehavioral problems in children. The original water tests in 1980 showed high levels of manganese, but this well has not tested high since then. 3.There is one private domestic well that is four years old in the area and the well is close to Newlin Creek which had water in May, 2013 and recharges the aquifer. Testing of Newlin Creek has not been done for several years. This well is a receptor of Southfield water and needs to be tested. The homeowner has objected to TR40 and requested continued monitoring. 4. EFCI was also written up for not following proper water testing procedures by Kent. 5. Janet has observed EFCI protocol on site which we appreciate, but we would like an independent water test conducted by the DRMS since you and not the Colorado State Health Department is not in charge of water in this case. Do you want each issue IDed separately or water issues? Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:11:30 -0600 Subject: Efficient responses From: rob.zuber @state.co.us To: tena aol.com; saunders615 @live.com; paulacoulterCcomcast.net Good afternoon - As you know, I am taking over as the lead specialist for DRMS at the Southfield Mine. In the interest of more efficient responses, I have two requests to make. Please try to coordinate on your emails and letters as much as possible. If just have to address an issue once to the Vento Group, rather than respond to two or three different emails, it will help expedite our responses and make communication better, I think. This is not just for me (as a new person on this mine) but will make it easier for any future specialist or other interested party to understand the issues. The second request is to separate issues into separate emails as much as possible (e.g., an email on TR -39 should be separated from an email on TR -40) and indicate the issue in the subject line. This will help with proper documentation and prevent items from "slipping through the cracks." I have talked to Linda about this and she agreed that it is a good idea. Thank you all for consideration of this request to improve communication and documentation. hftps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e29129fcb5&vi ew =pt &search= i nbox &th= 149be5445571 ba1f &si m 1= 149be5445571 bat f 3/4