My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2014-12-02_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981014
>
2014-12-02_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:55:46 PM
Creation date
1/7/2015 10:22:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/2/2014
Doc Name
Email from Linda Saunders
From
Linda Saunders
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Public Correspondence
Email Name
RDZ
MPB
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
1/7/2015 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: Adequacy Letter for Pond 4's retention <br />Rob <br />r, <br />COLORADO <br />Division of t ectairnati,ori, <br />A&17 Miim.ftig and, Safe't'y" <br />Denrartrnerrtc,;+ PalaturralFtt.sruwe:es <br />P303.866.3567, extension 3113 1 F303.832.8106 <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, CO 80203 <br />rob.zuber @state.co.us I http: / /mining. state. co. us <br />On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Linda Saunders <saunders615 @1ive.com> wrote: <br />Hi Rob, <br />Thank you for forwarding the adequacy letter from the DRMS regarding the retention of Pond 4. It seems <br />you are addressing two of our concerns. We do need to know the TDS, manganese, iron, calcium, nitrates, <br />radionuclides in Pond 4 before we can even consider it for watering livestock. And we need to know if there <br />needs to be an augmentation plan. <br />Are there other adequacy letters that you have sent EFCI that I should be aware of? <br />was very disappointed in the hydrologists report and the request to stop monitoring the water TR 43. The <br />manganese and iron levels in MW23 needs to be addressed. If they were in MW23 historically and MW23 is in <br />a coal seam why was it ever used as a monitoring well? The upslope well is to be located where it has not <br />been undermined and not effected by coal and mining. The testing of MW23 at app 150 feet does not meet <br />the regulations. <br />And George thinks the monitoring wells are for mining purposes. <br />Linda <br />https: / /mail.googl e.com /m ai I /u/0 / ?ui =2 &i k= e29129fcb5 &view =pt &search= i nbox &th= 14ac54264873lf91 &si m l= 14ac542648731 f91 2/2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.