Laserfiche WebLink
Mountain Coal Company <br />Weat Elk Mina <br />Post 0lfice nox 591 <br />Somer.et, Ca«ado 81a3a <br />Telephone 970 9245015 <br />Fax 970 9?&5595 <br />October 8, 1996 <br />Mr. IvLchael P. Boulay <br />Colorado Division of Mnnerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />/\ <br />REC~IVEb <br />oCr 11 t9~6 <br />Division of Minerals & Geology <br />Re: Responses to Review of 1995 Annual Hydrology Report; West Elk Mine; <br />Permit No. C-80-007 <br />Dear Mr. Boulay: <br />This letter is in response to, and paragaphs are numbered according to the topics o~ your letter of <br />September 6, 1996, subject as above. <br />Please find a revised page 1 enclosed that clarifies the third sentence of the last paragraph, and <br />a revised page 18 that correlates with this section ofthe Executive Summary. <br />2. Please find a revised page 2 enclosed that resolves conflicts. Changes to page 18 correlate with <br />this section of the Executive Summary regarding Well SOM-C-72-H, and clarifies the subject. <br />Page 2 was revised to indicate any "new" significant effects on springs. Diminished flows from <br />Spring G-26B were reported in 1994. <br />Please find a revised page 3 enclosed that wrrects the timing of events. <br />4. Please find a revised Table D-8 which presents baseline (Nov 50 -May 84) minimum and <br />maximum flow data for the North Fork Upper surface monitoring station. This information <br />was not recovered from historic Permit documentation or Annual Hydrology Reports, but was <br />generated from USGS Water Resources Data for the period of record (flow data at this station <br />is obtained from the USGS). No minimum and ma,~;mnt., flow data is available for the North <br />Fork Lower Station because there is no flow measurement at this monitoring station. <br />5. Please find a revised Table D-9 enclosed. Flow entries and the reference to Appendix A have <br />been deleted. The Division had previously agreed with MCC (in the 1990-1992 AHR review <br />responses) that a North Fork lower flow gage could not measure the changes in flow from the <br />upper to the lower station within the accuracy of the gages. A USGS hydrologist recently <br />verified this fact. <br />