APPCOR11759 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;. ~: Sandy Emrich FROM: Jerry Zimpfer ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII STATE OF COLORADO RiC r+4R0 D . L4MM. Gnv crn nr DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES D. Monte Pastoe, Exetutrve Duettor MINED LAND RECLAMATION 423 Centennial Building,1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 David C: Shelton Director RE: Foidel Creek Underground Mine, Surface Fla ter Hydrology Adequacy Review (Rules 2.04.7 and 2.05.6(3)). DATE: November 5, 1982 I have completed my preliminary adequacy review of the surface water items submitted in response to Rules 2.04.7 and 2.05.6(3) of the State Regulations. The applicant's submittal of baseline hydrologic information, except for the spring su~vey,is very good. However, the discussion of probable hydrologic consequences (Rule 2.05.6(3)) is qualitative and fails to address several possible hydrologic effects of the proposed operation. The discussion of probable hydrologic consequences should be expanded and quantified •so that the Division has a clear understanding of just what effect this mining operation would have on the existing hydrologic system. The applicant should submit additional information for the following areas of concern. 1. Rule 2.04.7(2)(a) - The applicant relies upon published U.S.G.S. data for their spring survey. Normally, U.S.G.S. studies are regional, and are not as intensive as those surveys performed by mine permit applicant.ythemselves (e .g. ARCO's P1t. Gunnison application). In addition, the applicant has submitted only one water quality sample and flow measurement for each of the two springs identified. This is not sufficient to show the seasonal variations in water quality and quantity, or even to identify the flow regime of the springs. She applicant should perform his own spring survey for the permit area and adjacent area, and provide sufficient data to identify seasonal variations in quality and quantity. ~.