Laserfiche WebLink
iii iiiiiiiiiiiii iii ; <br />~~ ~ TWENTYMILE COAL COMPANY 999 ~ <br />Sim SUBSIDIARY OF CYPRUS MINERALS COMPANY <br />P.O. Box =.' ' • 29515 Routt County Road 27 • Oak Creek, Colorado 80467 <br />Telephone: 1303) 879-8050 <br />July 16, 1986 <br />Ms. Catherine Begej <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />Colorado Mined Land <br />Reclamation Division <br />423 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />~~~~~~~~ <br />JUL 2 2 <br />~f¢~I~D LAND RECLAAAATION <br />Vu~u. OCpt. of Na!:r~a! Neso~rces <br />RE: Response to Comments in 1985 AHR - Foidel Creek Mine <br />Permit No. C-82-056 <br />Dear Ms. Begej: <br />The following will serve to respond to the comments raised in your letter of <br />June 5, 1986, to the above report. Each specific comment has been typed with <br />the corresponding response immediately below it. <br />MLRD Comment: <br />Site 84, Pond D's outfall, is the only discharge point covered by CDPS Permit <br />0027154. Effluent from this site periodically exceeds receiving stream <br />standards for molydenum, zinc and copper. Detection limits on cadmium and <br />mercury are higher than the receiving stream standards, indicating that these <br />metals may also be a problem. Silver levels exceeded receiving stream <br />standards during the first three quarters of the year, but it is our <br />understanding that the analytical procedure was in question during that time. <br />Estimates of salt concentrations (EC and TDS) are in excess of levels which <br />CMLRD considers acceptable to avoid material damage without natural adequate <br />streamflow dilution. <br />Response• <br />From the work that has been on TCC's life of mine application it appears the <br />concerns over material damage have been addressed. The main point is that the <br />water is used after it enters Trout Creek, and sufficient dilution occurs to <br />maintain TDS levels within an acceptable range. <br />MLRD Comment: <br />Discharge data along Foidel Creek indicated that there were no losing reaches. <br />However, Fish Creek data showed a losing reach in 1985 between site 1001 and <br />1002. Has this been hostorically true? The Division strongly recommends that <br />gaging equipment be checked at 1002 and requests to be informed of the <br />results. <br />c~RUs <br />