My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP06931
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP06931
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:37:15 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 11:29:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
6/9/1992
Doc Name
REVIEW ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC REPORT 1991 WATER YEAR PN C-82-056
From
MLRD
To
TWENTYMILE COAL CO
Permit Index Doc Type
HYDROLOGY REPORT
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.
/
4
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
<br />Mr. Marcus Middleton -4- June 9, 1992 <br />Twentymile Coal Company <br />Surface Water <br />Site 115 pH reading of 10/1/90 is obviously an error. No copper was <br />reported when it should be monthly. June sample values are missing. <br />Springs and Pond Discharge <br />Most primary metals are missing from the 11/15/90 sample for spring 303-1. <br />Mine Inflow/Outflow <br />Review of the 1990 AHR review comments related to mine inflow/outflow <br />suggests that the author was misled by the water quality of 006-82-74C as <br />being representative of historical Wadge quality. It is apparent after <br />further review that 006-82-74C is influenced by spoil water from adjacent <br />surface mining and is not representative of Wadge quality. Data through <br />September 1991 suggests that most mine inflow is much higher in EC and <br />dissolved solids than Wadge overburden water, especially near the portal <br />area, which also points toward the surface spoils as the cause of <br />increased TDS. <br />CONCLUSION <br />No evidence of material damage to the hydrologic regime of the Foidel Creek <br />Mine or surrounding area can be identified at the present time. The <br />Division's primary concerns are as follows: <br />TCC responses to 1990 and 1991 AHR's need to be completed prior to the <br />end of the 1992 field season so that changes or updates in the current <br />monitoring plan can be accomodated. <br />2. The salt loading analysis for Foidel and Fish Creek need to be reworked <br />using information which more closely resembles what is taking place <br />relative to volume and quality of mine discharge. Additionally, the use <br />of water from Emerald Spring for underground operation has not been <br />considered and, as alluded to in the Midterm Review, a revised PHC will <br />be necessary to address this issue also. These issues will be handled <br />outside of this AHR review, probably at permit renewal. <br />Thank you for your diligence in adhering to your approved hydrologic <br />monitoring plan. If you have questions, please call me. <br />Sincer ly, <br />~v~~~~~ <br />Kent A. Gorham <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />KAG/bjw <br />3525E <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.