My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-03-28_REPORT - C1980007
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2006-03-28_REPORT - C1980007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:16:21 PM
Creation date
12/30/2009 3:55:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
3/28/2006
Doc Name
2004 AHR Review Letter
From
DMG
To
Mountain Coal Company
Annual Report Year
2004
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
Email Name
TAK
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.
/
10
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
Require- <br /> Require- ment <br />Requirement ment complied Comment <br /> citation with ? (yes <br /> no <br /> Pages 2.05-138 through 166 of the permit application predict the <br /> following probable hydrologic consequences from mining at the <br /> West Elk Mine: <br /> 1) Mining will not directly affect the Rollins Sandstone in the <br /> permit area (page 2.05-143). <br /> 2) Subsidence fractures will not cause significant changes in <br /> water chemistry due to inter-stratal mixing of ground water <br />V. Agreement CDMG (page 2.05-146). <br />3) Mining will not significantly impact the North Fork of the <br />of observed regulation Gunnison River (page 2.05-146). <br />hydrologic 2.05.6(2) 4) Mining will not preclude any uses of North Fork water (page <br />impacts with and 2.05-146). <br />"probable requireme 5) Mining in the Apache Rocks permit revision area will not <br />hydrologic nt to keep yes measurably impact the surface water hydrologic balance of <br />consequences informatio the Dry Fork of Minnesota Creek (page 2.05-156). <br />" (PHC) n current, 6) Mining in the Box Canyon permit revision area will not <br />projected in CDMG measurably impact the surface water hydrologic balance of <br />mining regulation the North Fork of the Gunnison River (page 2.05-156). <br />permit 2.03.3(1) 7) Mining will not directly impact surface water in Sylvester <br /> Gulch (page 2.05-156). <br /> 8) Mining will not significantly impact streams (page 2.05-156). <br /> Review of the 2004 AHR found that impacts have not exceeded <br /> the impacts predicted in the PHC. <br /> Existing monitoring appears adequate. Bedrock ground water <br /> monitoring wells are positioned to intercept gob leachate now at <br />W. Adequacy the two locations most likely to be in the leachate flow path, <br />of ground CDMG should leachate migrate down-gradient from the mine workings <br />water regulation yes after the workings are flooded. North Fork alluvial water is not <br />monitoring 4.05.13(1) monitored, but a negative impact from mining is unlikely as <br />program explained in the preceding discussion of the Basic Standards for <br /> Ground Water. <br /> Existing monitoring appears adequate. Instream monitoring is <br /> conducted upstream and downstream from the mining operation <br />X. Adequacy of CDMG on the North Fork of the Gunnison River. The mine's discharges <br />surface water regulation yes to the North Fork are monitored at NPDES outfalls. The need <br />monitoring 4.05.13(2) for new monitoring stations in the South of Divide Area is <br />program currently being evaluated in the review of Permit Revision PR- <br /> 10. <br />Page 7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.