HYDRO21030

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: Hydrology
• Doc Date: 2/13/1984
• Doc Name: REPORT CONCERNING SPRING MONITORING WEST ELK COAL MINE
• From: WATEC
• To: WEST ELK COAL CO
• Permit Index Doc Type: OTHER SURFACE WATER
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

1.0 Introduction
WATEC, INC. in April 1979 assumed responsibility for monitoring the
. surface and ground water resources of the West Elk Coal Mine Project near
Somerset, Colorado. Monitoring the flow and water quality of springs in
the area has been an on-going part of the monitoring program. The obtained
records together with field observations suggest that some locations may
not warrent the level of effort accorded them.
12
1983
R
l
d
C
,
oy
ox
ated Auqust
, Mr.
Ina memo to Mr. Bob Lidd
e (CMLRD)
' (CMLRD) suggested modifications to the water resources monitoring program
l
b
d
d
h
lk
l
i
Th
l
ff
t
on
ort
e expen
e
at t
e West E
Coa
M
ne Project.
e
eve
e
o
springs was addressed. In summary, the springs in the north half of the Dry
Fork of Minnesota Creek drainage are to be monitored for flow monthly as
weather permits. Springs in the North Fork of the Gunnison River drainage
south of the river in the permit area and adjacent areas above the F-seam
coal are to be monitored quarterly for flow as weather permits. Springs
within the disturbed area and spring within the mine permit area and
adjacent area in the North Fork Gunnison River drainage which issue from
' the F-seam or strata below the F-seam will be monitored quarterly for flow
d
l
i
ll
l
T
an
sem
-annua
y for
aboratory water qua
ity.
hese recommendations are
adhered to throughout this report.
' .
On October 26, 1983, a meeting was held in the CMLRD offices to dis-
cuss the modified hydrology monitoring program. In attendance were
Bob Liddle, and Roy Cox (CMLRD), Rocky Bowman (West Elk), and Hayden Phillips
and Ron Hanna (WATEC, INC.). At the meeting a topic of discussion was
spring monitoring. It was suggested by Mr. Bowman and his consultants that
some springs, for reason of their hydrology, geology or location, may not
be necessary or of value for monitoring possible hydrologic impacts during
mining. On-January 19, 1984 a meeting was held at the CMLRD office to
' discuss spring monitoring specifically. The CMLRD staff requested a
' follow-up report. This report is prepared in response to that request.
2.0 Procedure
Most of the springs that have been monitored north of the Dry Fork
and south of the North Fork of the Gunnison were visited during the month of
' October, 1983 for the purpose of obtaining one or more colored sides of