APPCOR12574

• Permit No: C1981015
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 9/18/1992
• Doc Name: FRUITA HYDROLOGY FINDINGS C-81-015
• From: MLRD
• To: JANET BINNS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~ ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
STATE Or~ c:uLUxADO
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman SI., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
303 866-3567
Fn x: 303 832-8106
DATE: September 18, 1992
TO: Janet Binns
FROM: Larry Routten
RE: Fruita Hydrology Findings (C-81-015)
OF ~~[O
r~~~~
f f
~ f876 ~
Ray Romer.
Governor
Michael B. Long.
Division Director
I reviewed the hydrology information in the Fruita permit
application submitted by Greg Lewicki. I also relied on the
Division review of the reclamation plan submittal for the Fruita
Mine in 1989. That plan was essentially the same as the one we
have now, as far as the reclamation plan is concerned. I also
relied on baseline information in the old Dorchester application
for the Fruita Mine area mines (79-60). Finally, I spoke with Jim
Shite, who is a staff hydrologist for the Grand Junction District
Office of the BLM.
Based on my review of the items above, I wrote the hydrology
section and the PHC for the findings document. Some time soon,
Steve Wathen or Shawn Smith should amend the Division's CHIA to
include the findings on the Fruita Mine.
My conversation with the BLM hydrologist centered on the status of
Big Salt Wash. In summary, he said Big Salt Wash ran perennially
from 1981-1988 (he started monitoring it in 1981) above the Ruby
Lee Reservoir diversion. The surface flow has dried up every fall
since 1989. The numbers he gave me for the early 1980's indicated
peak flows of 28.6 cfs and low flows in the fall of less than 1
cfs.
Ruby Lee Reservoir is in disrepair and is not capable of retaining
much water in its present state. Water quality just above the
diversion (in Big Salt Wash) is typified by specific conductivity
readings of around 560 umhos/cm at high flow and 1000-2000 at low
flow.