Laserfiche WebLink
-~ <br />~II ~I~~I~~I~~~~~~~~ <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmenl of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman 51., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: 1303) R66-3567 <br />FA%: 13031 832-8106 <br />~I~h~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Rov Romer <br />Governor <br />TO: Harry Ranney 8 January 1998 lames s Eochhrad <br />E~ecw rve Direcror <br />Michael B. Long <br />FROM: Jim Burnel Dn•i~inn DueUOr <br />SUBJ: New Hori n Mine 1997 AHR and Comments on Monitoring Plan <br />Harry, 1 have completed the review of Ross's submittal for the 1997 water year. Overall, I find <br />the document to be satisfactory. There are a few comments. <br />1) The operator doesn't directly address the probable hydrologic consequences within the <br />document. But then hardly anybody does. It would be easier on us -and more directly <br />applicable [o [he purpose of the document [o do so - but I really haven't pushed anybody to do <br />that. <br />2) There is one approach that 1 will comment on. i would like to request that the Operator <br />include trend diagrams for at least TI)S in the packet. T13e only way the analyses of the various <br />geochemical parameters mean anything is in the context of their history -how does TDS in the <br />spring of 1997 compare with TDS in the spring of 1981? Out of this context they are <br />meaningless. These guys don't even include the data tables from previous years, so developing a <br />picture of that trend is a pain in the neck for me. So at least include the data if they don't do the <br />plots themselves. <br />3) There are several mistakes/discrepancies (or perhaps just misunderstandings on my part that <br />need cleared up.) <br />* First, the map in the permit, 2.04.7-1-A, does not show monitoring site <br />GW-N26; it does show two sites labeled CW-N27. <br />* Secondly, well GWN-16P1 is listed on the same map as "abandoned," yet results <br />appear in the AHR. is the map in error or the notation in the AHR'? <br />