REP10311

• Permit No: C1981018
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 2/6/2002
• Doc Name: 2001 AHR Memo
• From: Dan Mathews
• To: Sandy Brown & Jim Burnell
• Annual Report Year: 2001
• Permit Index Doc Type: Hydrology Report
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resour ces
1313 Sherman SC, Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203 O I v I s I o N O F
Phone: [phone] MINERAL $
FAX: [phone] &
GEOLOGY
DATE: February 6; 2002 R E C L A M A T I O N
MI NING•SAFETY
TO: Sandy Btown and Jim Burnell
r, _ Bill Owens
FROM: Dan Mathews ['F,Y(J~ coverror
Greg E Watcher

RE:
Deserado Mine 17`s AhTR (Water Year 2000/2001) Executive Director
Permit C-7981-018 Michael B. Long
Division Director
I have received hvo copies of [he referenced report, and will be sending one copy to Denver with this
week's mailing for "day forward" imaging. Once it has been imaged, I will need a PHC review (I assume
by Jim). Let Alysha know if you want the hard copy, otherwise I guess Jim will be able to review the
electronic version?
Anyway, I did the initial compliance review. Ali requred monitoring was conducted and required
analytical data was reported. The basic requirements established in the permit for the AHR were met.
However, there aze a couple of points I think we may want toraise, and I would reyuest a hydrologist's
opinion.
First, in Section 2.2. ].2, there is discussion regarding effects ofKenney Reservoir on White River alluvia!
water quality in the vicinity of the mouth of Scullion Gulch. The narrative in this section references
"potential effects" that "were projected that the dissolved solids of the ..,alluvium... would increase
initially.... TDS would then gradually deerease...to near or slightly above baseline conditions..P Table
E-4 of the AHR does seem to show this trend. ,
The AHR wording seems to imply that Thera were some projections, in the PHC regazding an expected
increase in TDS as the resen-oir filled, followed by a gradual decrease. The only reference to the topic of
White River Alluvial water quality 1 find in the PHC is paragraph 2, nn pages ILC-86 (Rev. 1/00), but I
don't see any projertion resembling that described in ;*he AHR. I'm not sure what to think about this.
Should we request that the PHC be amended to describe the apparent ttend documented in the AHR?
Second, in Section 3.2-of the AHR, Comparison of Projected Impacts wtrh Observed Impacts, there is brief
summary discussion of the projected and observed subsidence effects oflongwal] mining beneath Red
Wash. Monitored areas of Red Wasb were mined in the 1980s. The PHC section of the permit also
discusses projected subsidence impacts of longwall mining beneath Scullion Gulch and stock ponds located
along Scullion. During the 200(V2001 water year, initial longwall mining occurred beneath Scullion Gulch
and Raven Park Reservoir (a normally drv stock pond), via Pane] LW-B1. Daily visual monitoring was
required for a period of time during and immediately following undermining, and several subsidence cracks
were observed on top of the earthen dam of Raven Park Reservoir I believe some discussion of the
projected and observed impacts of mining beneath Scullion Gulch and Raven Park Reservoir should be
included in this year's AHR.
Third, I remember that Jim mentioned last year that he thought some quantification of the "insignificant
mine inflows" should be provided. I note that on page ILC-78 of the P.A.P (Rev. 8/99), narrative indicates
that the second section of the AHR'wi11 include qualitative discussion of visual monitoring of water
inflows in the mine." It seems to me that this is a battle we previously fought and lost withWanstedt at
some point in the past five years, but if Jint believes it to be warranted and can present a justification, we