Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />STATE OF <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />303 666-3567 <br />FA x: 303 832-8106 <br />DATE:\ March 4, 1991 <br />T0: vTony Wal dron <br />FROM: Bill Cridc'+''G <br />RE: Eagle Mine (C-81-044) Mid-Term Review <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />COLORADO <br />O4' COQ <br />~E', O~ <br />~PC9$ <br />. G U o y . <br />~~ <br />r, ~;; a <br />~ r8]6 ~ <br />Roy Romer, <br />Governor <br />Fretl R. Banta. <br />Division Director <br />I have reviewed the permit application package (ground water information and <br />water rights sections) and Annual Hydrologic Reports through 1989 for the <br />purpose of mid-term review. Although there appear to be no serious problems <br />in these areas, I have a couple of comments on the presentation of information <br />in these two sources. <br />The AHR's consist of statistical analysis of all water samples taken in the <br />past, reporting number of samples, minimum, maximum, mean, and standard <br />deviation of the various measured parameters. The reports on individual <br />samples are then submitted in a separate binder, titled "Complete Water <br />Quality Data Listing Through [DATE]". We should request that the operator <br />organize this supplementary material so that each sample is reported on a <br />single page, rather than on as many as seven different pages. Any attempts to <br />verify or analyze the data for a single sample (such as anion-cation balance <br />or analytical vs. calculated TDS) are very difficult. The raw data appears to <br />be printed from a computer spreadsheet and should thus be easy to manipulate <br />into a more useable form. As is currently done within the AHR, bivariate <br />plots could continue to show water quality trends over time. If the raw data <br />were provided in a three-ring binder or some such format, it could be updated <br />annually with submittal of only one year's worth of sample reports. <br />The presentation of information in Exhibit 11 and on Map 18 also makes this <br />data difficult to use. The list of water rights leaves out potentially <br />important information such as location, structure type, and water source, <br />which is provided by the State Engineer's Office in its listings. Map 18, <br />dated August, 1986 and titled "Water Rights" appears to have left out many of <br />the rights listed in Exhibit 11. It is therefore nearly impossible for the <br />Division to evaluate the possible impacts of hydrologic changes on established <br />water sources. These two information sources should be updated so that they <br />are complete and in agreement with one another, <br />In summary, the Division should request revisions (probably MR's) to update <br />1) the hydrologic reporting format, and 2) the water rights listing and map. <br />cc: Mike Savage <br />/eas <br />3805E <br />