Laserfiche WebLink
~j `= III III III III IIII III <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman 51 , Roum 21 5 ~I~ <br />Denver, Colorado tl0?03 <br />Vhonc 0031 A6fi-3567 <br />FA%' (3071 8J? 8106 <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />May 4, 1994 RESOURCE <br />Nav Numrr <br />C n.•crnor <br />Attn: Jack Epple ti,.~s,,„,„ <br />Coors Energy e,c~,~n.,•I~~,~,i~~~ <br />P.O. $O7[ 3$9 raaharilt i,~n~ <br />Reenesburq, CO 80643 °'°"'"" u"°""' <br />Re: 1993 Annual Hydrology Report and Annual Reclamation Report <br />Reenesburq Mine (C-81-028) <br />Dear Jack: <br />The Division has reviewed the 1993 Annual Hydrology Report and <br />Annual Reclamation Report submitted by Coors Energy and have the <br />following comments. <br />Annual Hvdrology Report and Review <br />Regarding the new format for static water depth, pH and EC, the new <br />scale used is an excellent choice, illustrating the diversity of <br />the data without too much signal interference. I am particularly <br />in favor of the 500 foot scale used in the specific conductance <br />charts. Keep up the good work! For future reference, one foot <br />intervals for static water level may have to be reduced to two or <br />even five foot if there is a particularly wet or dry year <br />experienced and the data reflect it. <br />All wells seem to have dropped in static water levels since last <br />year; FPW-1 recorded a 4 foot drop, DH96 a 3 foot drop, DH122 a 4 <br />foot drop, SMW-2 a 1 foot drop and AMW-1 a 4 foot drop. Please <br />provide an explanation for the static water level drop. <br />PH levels have also increased from 1993 data on all wells, most <br />noticeably on wells SMW-2 second quarter; up from 6.7 to 8.2, DH122 <br />dropping to 6.8 3rd quarter and then increasing to 8.5 in the 4th <br />quarter, DH96 increasing from 7.4 to 8.4 in the 4th quarter and FPW <br />up from 7.6 to 8.6 a magnitude of 1. Please provide an explanation <br />for the increasing pH levels for these wells. In addition, a swing <br />from lower 6's to higher 8's for pH levels exists for the wells <br />DH96, DH122 and SMW-2. Please provide an explanation for this <br />phenomena. Are the pH levels recorded on pages 6-8 due to lab data <br />or are the data take from in-house recordings? The possibility of <br />a non-calibrated meter may exist in either case. Please <br />investigate and respond in writing to the Division to explain these <br />