My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP51156
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP51156
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:55:57 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 1:01:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
12/6/2004
Doc Name
2003 AHR Review Letter
From
DMG
To
Mountain Coal Company
Annual Report Year
2003
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
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.
/
2
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
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 666-3567 <br />FAX: (303) 832-6106 <br />6 December 2004 <br />Mr. Henry Barbe <br />Mountain Coal Company LLC <br />P.O. Box 591 <br />Somerset CO 81434 <br />Re: West Elk 2003 Annual Hydrology Report, Review (C-1980-007) <br />Dear Mr. Bazbe: <br />COLORADO <br />DIVISION O F <br />MINERALS <br />GEOLOGY <br />0.ECLAMATION•MINING <br />SAf ETY•SCIENCE <br />Bill Owens <br />Governor <br />Russell George <br />Executive Director <br />Ronald W. Cattany <br />Division Director <br />Natural Resource Trustee <br />The Division has received and reviewed the 2003 Annual Hydrology Report submitted by <br />Mountain Coal Company. Overall, the report was fine. There are several specific <br />comments. <br />(1) The Division found the discussion of each individual surface monitoring site and the <br />relationship of that site with mining activity to be an excellent addition to the report. <br />(2) Likewise, the addition of some detailed discussion of each monitored spring is an <br />excellent addition and should be helpful in the future. One addition to the spring section <br />could be the classification of the spring from Mayo's study and report, as to whether the <br />particular spring is an alluvial/colluvial spring or if it discharges "older" water. <br />(3) On page, 30, MCC should explain why the total outflow of water from the mine is <br />50% greater than the total inflow. It is possible to deduce a reason for this, but the <br />obvious difference in the numbers should be explained for all readers. <br />(4) The accounting and representation on the map of mine inflow sites and volumes was <br />much better this yeaz than in the past. <br />(5) Just as last yeaz, however, a discrepancy occurs between two sepazate discussions of <br />mine inflow water. On page 29, it is stated that mine inflow accounted for 91 acre-feet; <br />on page 30, the figure is stated as 161 acre-feet. Please provide an explanation and <br />describe the correct value. <br />Office of <br />Mined Land Reclamation <br />Office of <br />Active and Inactive Mines <br />Colorado <br />Geological Survey <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.