Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Deparlmenl of Nalu ral Resources <br />1 }1 }Sherman 51., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80?O7 <br />Phone: 13031 866-356 7 <br />FAX: (3071 812-8106 FAX MEMO / COVER S H E E T <br />To: Karl Koehler No. of pages sent including <br />Trapper Mine this cover sheet 2 <br />Fax (970) 824-4632 <br />From: Tom Kaldenbach ~`"'I <br />Phone (303) 866-3567 <br />Fax (303) 832-8106 <br />Re: Permit C-81-010 <br />TR-78, 1997 Annual Report <br />~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />Wme• 5. Lochhead <br />Execmiae Uirenoi <br />M ~chael B. Long <br />Date: July 22, 1998 Uivuion Director <br />Message ----------------------------------------------------------------- <br />As you explained on the phone yesterday, you will be meeting with your <br />hydrology consultant soon and it would be good to have at that time any of the <br />Division's more substantial questions concerning TR-78. Three of the review <br />questions follow. Call me if you have questions. <br />1) Reference to we// GE-> on page 6-2, T° paragraph, and page 6-3, 1s~ <br />paragraph -The reference on page 6-2 indicates that mining affected the <br />water level in this well through pit dewatering, but the reference on page 6-3 <br />says that the increase in TDS in this well was "probably not caused by <br />mining". Please explain your basis for concluding that the elevated TDS was <br />not caused by mining. <br />2) Why are Cottonwood and Wapiti springs considered spoil springs given <br />their locations on unmined ground? <br />3) Page 6-6, T° paragraph. The third sentence in this paragraph says: "The <br />TDS of the surface water from the mine area is similar to the TDS from the <br />non-mined area, therefore, an increase has not been defined." Assuming <br />this statement refers to the non-mined S-1 site and the mined NPDES 001 and <br />002 sites, is the conclusion still valid given thatflows at S-1 have greatly <br />declined over the years, while flows at NPDES 001 and 002 have shown little <br />change? Could it be that the TDS increase at S-1 was caused simply by <br />diminishing flows, while the TDS increases at 001 and 002 are caused by a <br />local influx of dissolved solids? <br />