REP30022

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 9/6/1996
• Doc Name: REVIEW OF 1995 ANNUAL HYDROLOGY REPORT WEST ELK MINE PN C-80-007
• From: DMG
• To: MOUNTAIN COAL CO
• Permit Index Doc Type: HYDROLOGY REPORT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

r,
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
999
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmenl of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215 u

Denver, Colorado 80203 Il
~~

Phone: f303) 866-3567 I
FAx: [phone]
DEPARTMEIJT OF
S CES
September 6, 1996 RE OUR
Roy Ramer
Ms. Christine Johnston eavernar
Mountain Coal Company Tames 5. Lochhead
P. O. Boz 591 Executive Dueaor

Somerset, Colorado 81434 Michael B. Long
Division Dueclor
Re: Review of 1995 Annual Hydrology Report; West Elk Mine; Permit No. C-80-007
Dear Ms. Johnston:
The Division has reviewed the 1995 Annual Hydrology Report (AHR) for the West Elk
Mine. This letter presents the Division's comments and recommendations regarding the
1995 report. Several deviations from the approved monitoring plan were noted for the
frequency of data collection as required by the 1995 Water Year monitoring plan.
A summary of the main water quantity and quality issues identified based on the Divisions's
review are provided in the following paragraphs. Specific comments are provided below.
Cumulative water quantity effects on the North Fork Gunnison River down gradient of the
West Elk Mine cannot be adequately assessed without flow measurement data from the
North Fork Lower station. The Division recommends that flow measurements at the North
Fork Lower station be added to the water quality monitoring program. Another water
quantity concern is the accurate documentation of mine inFlow water and its ultimate
disposition. If water is being discharged or Bumped in the mine then the discharge must be
discharged as a controlled and identifiable Flow and be ultimately treated by an existing
treatment facility (see comment No. 9 below).
Based on the data presented for WY 1995, there does not appear to be a significant
difference in water quality between the North Fork Upper and North Fork Lower stations.
It appears that in May 1995 iron (total) exceeded the water quality standard for Stream
Segment 2 North Fork of the Gunnison River, at both the North Fork Upper and North
Fork Lower stations. One of the problems with the metals data as they are presented is that
stream water quality standards are in either total recoverable or dissolved concentrations.
The metals data presented for the North Fork Upper and North Fork Lower stations for
WY 1995 are in total concentrations, which are not directly comparable to total recoverable
concentrations. Thus, the Division has recommended in the past that both total and
dissolved analyses be presented for iron and manganese for the North Fork stations. The
total concentration can be used to compare with established baseline data and the dissolved