Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• • <br />7. There were no visits to site SW-7 in July and August of 1990. <br />8. The October, 1989 data for site SW-5 are missing. <br />9. There is no data for October, 1989 at site SW-12. <br />10. At site SW-10 there were no data for July, 1990, nor any field <br />parameters for October of 1989. <br />11. Table 1 (Summary of Hydrologic Monitoring Stations) indicates a <br />monthly(M> level check only for the following; Mesaverde Coal <br />member wells, well GR 77-7, Roatcap Creek Colluvium, Steven's Gulch <br />Colluvium, Terror Creek Colluvium. Inspection of the data for <br />these wells shows a monitoring record which indicates a 'monthly <br />except in winter' (Ms) requirement. Please explain this <br />discrepancy. <br />Water Quality <br />Overall, water quality ranges from good to very good and there appears to <br />be no impact from mining at this time with regard to water quality. <br />The Division concurs with Cyprus's conclusion that no impact from mining can <br />be identified or inferred at the present time. After review of the 1990 AHR <br />and Mine Inflow Report it would appear that the current monitoring program may <br />be more than what is necessary. However, the Division cannot approve changes <br />or reduction in water monitoring in any way other than a technica] revision <br />submittal. Such a technical revision should be submitted which incorporates <br />the following suggestions: <br />1. Any reduction in monitoring must be substantiated by evidence of <br />duplication, discontinuation, or changes due to mining plans. <br />2. A clearer picture of existing and future underground operations and <br />their relationship to the surface will need to be presented (i.e. <br />maps, overlays, etc.>. Also, keep in mind that the individual who <br />reviews the data will many times not be the lead specialist, but a <br />staff hydrologist who has a limited understanding of the mine <br />site. Stated simply, the plan needs to be comprehensive while <br />being as clear and concise as possible. <br />3. Any technical revision to change the monitoring program will <br />ultimately require Summary pages listing of the approved monitoring <br />program for insertion into the permit document. <br />If you have questions or comments please feel free to contact me at the <br />Division. <br />Sincerely, <br />v~ ~'~ <br />Kent A. Gorham <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />KAG/eke <br />9047E <br />