Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />DePa~lnu•m ni N.nurdl Rcv nlrc cs <br />I J I J $hw mdn tiL. Kuum _' I i <br />Dl'MYr, (ulnied~~lil1!(1I <br />Phone (lll tr Ilo6. iSh7 <br />FA% (4111171 t_~Il lllh <br />December 6, 1995 <br />Mr. AI Weaver <br />EFCI <br />P. O. Box 449 <br />Florence, CO 81226 <br />~~~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Guvrma~ <br />W^+es 5 Lochhead <br />Esecmrce D~~eao~ <br />M1LChacIH Lang <br />Divrsmn Duecmr <br />RE: 1994 ANNUAL HYDROLOGY REPORT (AHR) -Southfield Mine -Permit No. C-81-014 <br />Deaz Mr. Weaver: <br />We have reviewed the above-referenced AHR, and our comments follow. Please respond as soon as possible <br />so that we may quickly resolve the minor issues outlined below. <br />SURFACE WATER <br />I) Please clarify whether Second Alkali and Magpie Flow measurements are taken on an "as flowing" <br />basis, a quarterly basis or both. See also comment number 4 under the "Recommended Stipulation <br />Consolidation" section of this letter. Be aware that the permit discusses daily samples during flow, <br />yet only one sample was collected for the second quarter of 1995. <br />2) The Newlin Creek and Oak Creek Flows were measured on April 25, 1995, but a quality sample was <br />taken on May 19, 1995. Both quality and quantity should be taken at the same time. Why the <br />deviation? Please verify that both quantity and quality for a particular station will be taken at the same <br />time in the future. <br />3) The Magpie Creek flow was measured on April 25, 1995, but the quality sample was collected on <br />April 26, 1995. Both should be obtained at the same time. Please verify that all future quantity and <br />quality observations for a particulaz station will occur at the same time. <br />4) Why was an oil and grease observation not recorded for the Newlin Creek and Oak Creek sample trips <br />of May 19, 1995, or for the Magpie Creek sample trip of April 26, 1995, or for the Second Alkali <br />Creek [rip of April 25, 1995? Please use a zero entry if the visual check was made, but no oil or <br />grease observed. <br />GROUNDWATER <br />I) As was noted during the last Annual Hydrology Report review, Table 8 monitor well depth values do <br />not coincide with the depth values provided in Exhibit 25. Please address and reconcile the different <br />numbers. <br />~II II~~II~III~~~ ~I~ <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />2) Please provide an explanation regarding the oil contamination of well MW-8. This appears to be an <br />upgradient well for which data should be collected. A replacement well may be advisable. Please <br />address. <br />