Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />STATE OF COLOiv~UU <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Dcparlmcnl ni Natural Resoun.e5 <br />I { I t Sherman 51., Rnnm 21 5 <br />Denver, Colorado 80201 <br />Phunc IS031 Sfi6-75fi7 <br />FA%:13031 8 7? ~S l l lfi <br />November 7, 1997 <br />Mr. John C. Weinman <br />Staff Hydrologist <br />TetraMatrix [nc. <br />P.O. BOX 774018 <br />Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 <br />Re: 1996 Annual Hydrology Report for H-G Loadout, Permit N. C-92-081, <br />(received by Division on February 14, 1997) <br />Dear Mr. Weinman: <br />The Division has completed its review of the above-referenced report and has the <br />following comments and question. <br />Report's fulfillment of reportingrequirements <br />Water monitoring requirements are found behind Tab 13 in Volume II of the mining <br />permit application. Two surface sites on Dry Creek (HGSD l and HGSD 3) and one <br />ground water site completed in Dry Creek alluvium (HGDAL 3) are monitored <br />semiannually once from April through June, and once from September through <br />November. <br />e <br />I~~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF- <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES: <br />Ruy Romer <br />Governor <br />lames 5. Lnrhhead <br />Eaecmrve Dueaor <br />M¢hael B Lang <br />Dimsion Direcmr <br />The upgradient surface water monitoring site, HGSD 1, is due to be dropped from <br />monitoring after 1996. (HGSD 2 was dropped in 1994 and HGDAL 1 and HGDAL 2 <br />were dropped in 1995.) HGSD l has not been an optimal surface monitoring location due <br />to its distance one-half mile upstream from the permit boundary. Without HGSD I, <br />though, the permit area will not have an upstream surface water monitoring site. The <br />Division has the following question: <br />1. How can the operator identify any upstream influences on surface water quality in <br />the permit area without an upstream surface monitoring location ? <br />