My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2021-10-25_REPORT - C1981012
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Coal
>
C1981012
>
2021-10-25_REPORT - C1981012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/27/2021 6:46:13 AM
Creation date
10/27/2021 6:37:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
10/25/2021
Doc Name Note
2019 & 2020
Doc Name
Annual Hydrology Report Adequacy Review
From
Robin Reilley
To
Jared Ebert
Annual Report Year
2019
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
Email Name
JLE
RAR
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.
/
6
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
W. Adequacy of CDRMS <br /> groundwater regulation Adequate <br /> monitoring 4.05.13(1) <br /> program <br /> Adequacy Questions <br /> DRMS August 2021 <br /> 1. DRM.S notes that well NE-1-10 was added to the monitoring program in 2018. In both the 2019 and 2020AHR's <br /> Table 3 Lab Analysis calls out well New-1-10 while the text refers to NE-1-10. <br /> 2. Please explain the discrepancy and if appropriate assure that future documents to avoid confusion utilize the correct <br /> terminology. <br /> 3. DRM.S notes that Section 2.05 of New Elk's permit refers to CBMproduction. This acronym is not defined and is not <br /> familiar. Please reference what the acronym CBMrefers to. <br /> 4. The inclusion in the AHR submittal of monitoring data comprising more than than the past year along with an <br /> analysis of any increasing and decreasing trends seems appropriate given the backfill in placed in the Purgatoire <br /> River. Going forward please consider include additional years of data. A discussion with DRMS as to what would be <br /> reasonable given the status of mining would be welcome. <br /> 5. As previously noted by the Division in the adequacy review of TR73, historic data from NE-1-10 should be <br /> included in the AHR together with data from the current monitoring period. <br /> Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.