Laserfiche WebLink
I nterofrice Memo <br />To: Sandy Brown <br />From: Kent Gorham ~ '_ <br />Date: 10/6/2005 <br />3b -°°~ <br />Re: Collum Site Meeting Notes, Colowyo, #C-90-006 <br />As you know, a group of DMG staff met with Colowyo Coal Company staff and consultants <br />regarding the proposed Collum project west of the current Colowyo operation. Also in <br />attendance were three members of the Division of Wildlife. I will be involved with review in <br />the areas of surface water hydrology, disposal of excess spoil, fish and wildlife, and <br />subsidence and highwall mining. The following are my thoughts and comments. <br />This is my second on-site meeting regarding this project. The first meeting was held on <br />September 28, 2004 and included Tay Tonozzi, Crellin Scott, Jerry Rowe, and Brant, a <br />contract geologist working for Colowyo. Note that only Tay Tonozzi and myself are the only <br />two common denominators between the two meetings. <br />Although the meeting provided additional information and was informative, the lack of a <br />definite mine plan leaves little for me to comment on at this time. Without a known disturbed <br />area boundary, it isn't possible to provide constructive input regarding storm runoff diversion, <br />pond locations, and clean water diversion location and function. Although the main pit area <br />seems to be fairly well defined, uncertainty remains about the location of excess spoil and <br />mining of the I pod coal. Mining was originally planned to start in the north (downslope) and <br />mine to the south. Based on what I heard at the meeting, mining may now start in the <br />southern reaches of the pit area (up slope) and mine toward the north. It appears that the <br />channel of Collum gulch will not be disturbed but it is possible that storm runoff may enter this <br />drainage after treatment in sediment ponds. <br />No mention was made about highwall mining and possible subsidence but if this occurs, it <br />should not be a big deal due to the lack of structures and renewable resource lands. <br />The mine seems to be leaning towards afive-mile long conveyor for coal transport to <br />Gossard loadout. This will present considerable challenges regarding water diversion and <br />sediment control as the area will likely be permitted as an SAE. A maintenance corridor, <br />short-term haul road, and an access road increase the disturbed area that will generally not <br />report to sediment ponds. <br />I assume that the baseline data collection is progressing as planned and outlined in the draft <br />work plan dated July 2004. <br />