HYDRO26384

• Permit No: C1981033
• IBM Index Class Name: Hydrology
• Doc Date: 9/15/2005
• Doc Name: Edwards Portal Discharge Review Letter Memo
• From: Jim Stark
• To: Joe Dudash
• Permit Index Doc Type: Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
INTEROFFICE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joe Dudash
FROM: Jim Stazk ~~;~i
SUBJECT: Edwards Portal Discharge at the Bear No. 3 Mine
DATE: 15 September 2005
COLORADO
DIVISION O F
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RFCLANATION•MINING
SAf ETY•SCIENCE
Bill Owens
Gwemor
Russell George
Executive Director
Ronald W. Canany
Division Dlmctor
Natural Resource Trustee
As per your request, I have reviewed the information submitted by Jim Stover in regazds
to the Edwards Portal dischazge (spring). I have also reviewed lab results from samples
taken by the Division, the permit application, Annual Hydrology Reports (1988-1998)
and correspondence between the Bear Coal Company (Bear) and the Division (including
a letter from the Bear Coal Company dated 9 May 2000). The following aze my
conclusions and recommendations with regazds to the portal discharge.
First, with the data provided by Stover, I think that it is impossible to determine the origin
of the water or to rule out the possibility that the water is mine water. Although there is a
compelling argument, with the data provided, that the water dischazged from the mine
(and sampled in 1995) differs significantly from that sampled from the spring. Several
problems exist. First, it appeazs as though the spring water was sampled at the pond
outfall. Although this gives an indication of the water quality, it is not exact (although
the attached chart shows that the water sampled by Bear is similar to that sampled by the
Division in 2004 and 2005). Second, the samples were taken several yeazs apart. The
question is, is that enough time for mine water to pick up the constituents seen in the
spring water?
One interesting thing is evident when comparing the results from the Division's samples
with the 1995 mine dischazge. In the mine discharge there is 40 ug/1 of silver (a very
uncommon constituent in both ground and surface water, especially at that level), no
aluminum detected and no manganese detected (which is unusual for mine water). In the
Edwazds Portal Spring sample (September 2004) there is no silver detected, 650 ug/1 of
aluminum and 1,200 ug/I of manganese. These three elements may hold the key to this
mystery. For the other analytes that were tested, the results were similaz but there was
nothing out of the ordinary. To have the large difference in [he three analytes noted
Office of
Mined Land Reclamation
Office of
Active and Inactive Mines
Colorado
Geo1o¢ical Burvev