REP10700

• Permit No: C1981033
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 9/16/2004
• Doc Name: 2003 Annual Hydrology Report Adequacy Review
• From: DMG
• To: Bear Coal Company
• Annual Report Year: 2003
• Permit Index Doc Type: Hydrology Report
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
7313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
September 16, 2003
COLORADO
DIVISION OF
MIN SRALS
GEOLOGY
iECLANATION•NI NINO
SAFETY•SCIENCE
Bill Owens
Governor
Mr. Daniel E. Beaz Russell George
Bear Coal Company Executive Director
P.O. Box 1754 Ronald W. Cottony
Paonia, Colorado 81428 Division n12CEOr
Natural Resource Trustee
RE: Bear No. 3 Mine, Permit No. C-81-033, Beaz Coal Company, 2003 Annual Hydrology Report,
Adequacy Review
Dear Mr. Beaz:
The Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (Division) has fmished its review of the 2003 Annual
Hydrology Report (AHR) submitted by the Beaz Coal Company (BCC) for the Bear No. 3 Mine. Except
for one small discrepancy mentioned in item number 1 below, all hydrologic monitoring in 2003 was
conducted according to the approved plan. The dischazges from the spring water treatment pond, outfall
001, complied with NPDES permit: requirements. The sediment pond did not discharge in 2003. The water
analyses of the North Fork of the Gunnison River above and below the mine site indicated that the mine
site is having a very small impact on the river. However, in items numbered 2 and 3 below, the Division
has two questions concerning the iron values obtained from the North Fork of the Gunnison River.
Permit application page 2.04-30 states that the springs in Lone Pine Gulch are to be monitored for
monthly flow and field pazameters from May through November. However, in the 2003 AHR,
monitoring only went from. May through September in 2003. In the future, please monitor these
springs according to the approved plan. As a note, the Division has received Beaz Coal Company's
(BCC) submittal of TR-28, in which BCC is requesting to discontinue the hydrologic monitoring
of the Lone Pine Gulch springs.
2. On page 3 of the 2003 AHR, the laboratory results at the upstream and downstream stations on the
North Fork of the Gunnison River show that iron concentrations (total recoverable) aze higher in
June than in December. As evidenced by the laboratory results presented in previous AHR's; this
trend also occurs in prior years as well. Does BCC have an explanation for these results?
3. The Division notes that the laboratory analyses presented on page 3 of the 2003 AHR show that an
iron concentration (total recoverable) of 0.39 mg/1 was obtained in June for the downstream station
on the North Fork of the Gunnison. The June laboratory analysis for iron (total recoverable) at the
upstream station was 0.30 rng/I. As shown on the website for the Colorado Department of Public
Health and the Environment (http://www.cduhestate.co.us/cdohehom.aspl, the receiving stream
standazd for iron for this segment of the North Fork of the Gunnison depends on whether or not
the river water is actually being used as a water supply. If it is, the compliance limit may be 0.30
mg/1(dissolved). If it is not; it appears that the limit is 1.0 mg/1(dissolved). At any rate, iron
concentrations have only exceeded 0.30 mg/l one time in the last few years. The Division is not
sure, however, if this iron concentration of 0.39 mg/I is part of a growing trend. On the one hand,
Office of Off ce of Colorado
Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines Geological Survey