My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL48581
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL48581
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:25:09 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 4:24:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
5/12/1987
Doc Name
1987 ANNUAL HYDROLOGY REPORT NEW ELK MINE FN C-81-012 & GOLDEN EAGLE MINE PN C-81-013
From
MLRD
To
WYOMING FUEL CO
Permit Index Doc Type
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
rJ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~,o <br />O4'CO~ III III IIIIII IIII III <br />~~~ . ~ 999 STATE OF COLORADO <br />.. <br />Roy Romer, Governor <br />~e~a <br />~N"~' Q~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION ~~ <br />DAVID C. SHELTON, Director <br />May 12, 1987 <br />Mr. David M. Stout <br />Wyoming Fuel Company <br />12055 West Second Place <br />Lakewood, Colorado 80215 <br />Re: 1986 Annual Hydrologic Report - New Elk Mine (File No. C-81-012) and <br />Golden Eagle Mine (File No. C-81-013) <br />Dear Mr. Stout: <br />The form of the above report is acceptable. There are, however, some <br />questions about the content and some typographical errors that the Division <br />would like corrected. <br />Narrative: In the future, Table 2-Short List should contain the lead and <br />se enium parameters which are now being included in the analyses run for <br />selected New Elk and Golden Eagle monitoring stations. <br />Page 14 contains the statement that all parameters of the Golden Eagle Mine <br />discharge with the exception of pN were within limits for the year. WFC <br />should indicate anything being done to keep pH of the discharge within the <br />acceptable range in the future. <br />Appendix I: A check should be made of the July entry in Table 1-1; the flow <br />figure seems at odds with those for July in Tables 1-2 and 1-3 where maximum <br />annual values were recorded in June. <br />A check should be made of the flow figures entered in Table 1-2 for August <br />thru December. The decline in flow recorded in just one mile between PRS-2 <br />and PRS-3 during those months seems too large to believe. Can WFC explain <br />such dramatic differences? <br />Table 1-4 shows a footnote value of average pump flow of 106 gpm between <br />July 1, 1986 and September 3, 1986 that does not agree with values derived <br />from mine discharge volumes listed in Table 3 of Appendix 3. Why the <br />difference? <br />Table 1-4 and 1-5 lack ]istings of flow data but such information is <br />apparently available from mine records. These values should be added to the <br />tables in the future. <br />423 Centennial Building, 7373 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203-2273 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.