Laserfiche WebLink
4/2/2015 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: 4.05.1 Hydrologic Balance General Requirements and Staff Review of AHR <br />Water District in 1995. <br />The 1986 Inlow data was submitted by EFCI's water consultants Bishop, Brodgen <br />and Rump and reported as 142.5 ac /ft 141.9 ac /ft from the North Entry Well. <br />Later the inflow is reported in gallons and is much lower. <br />1987- 1988 -1989. <br />In a letter to Al Weaver dated September 29, 1988 James C Stevens states "I <br />have completed the review of the 1986 -87 Annual Hydrologic Report furnished <br />me on April 20, 1988 and I have the following comments <br />4. The validity of statements made in Part II under Ground Water, e.g. "..data <br />indicates no significant changes in the ground water levels as a result of mining" <br />cannot be confirmed from the water level plots presented. The data are limited <br />and do not allow comparison of current levels with those of the past. The previous <br />data from the wells should be provided and /or plotted with the current data so <br />that any trends are recognizable or their absence readily verifiable. <br />5. The water quality data for the monitoring wells are similarly limited. The <br />significance of current water quality and any variation in quality during the current <br />monitoring year cannot be determined when only the most recent date is <br />presented. Past water quality data for these wells should be included for <br />comparison. <br />In a letter from William B. Crick, Reclamation Specialist "I have reviewed the <br />Annual Hydrology Report for the period from June, 1987 to May, 1988. The report <br />satisfies Stipulation 2 pertaining to the continued hydrologic monitoring, and also <br />Stipulation 6 addressing water balance in the Southfield mine. The only question " <br />Inflow #6 from the 1986 -1987 report is not indicated on the map from the current <br />report, and is not discussed. Has it dried u, or was in inadvertently omitted? <br />Similarly, inflow #4 of the 1987 -1988 report is not mapped or mentioned in the <br />previous report, and is not discussed as a new inflow. Is this seep which has <br />developed within the past year. <br />He also notes that the levels of Sodium Absorption Ratio and dissolved iron and <br />manganese are high in certain cases. <br />In 1992 Inflows were reported as 156 ACFT and much higher than the 1991 <br />estimate and 1993 doubling of 1991. <br />In a December 1, 1993 review Shawn E Smith Environmental Protection <br />Specialist notes <br />a. MW 8 was mined through. Mined through? <br />2. Mine inflow doubled last year (34.6 (1991 estimated) to 62.4) as did water <br />quality discharge (3.9 ACFT to 24.6ACFT). Is this due entirely to excessive <br />precipitation events during the month of August as is implied in the report, or are <br />there additional causes for the increase, such as new areas being mined and <br />dewatered? Please clarify. <br />In his November 15,1994 letter after his review on the 1993 -1994 AHR under I. <br />Mine Inflow Changes have occurred in the mine since last years report: <br />A. It is apparent from the amount of inflow recorded this year that the mine is <br />https: //m ai I .googl e.com /m ai I /u/0 / ?ui= 2 &i k= e29129fcb5 &view = pt &search= i nbox &th= l4c7abOe8c4O8f38 &si m l= 14c7abOe8c4O8f38 315 <br />