My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10837
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10837
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:21 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:13:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1992081
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
5/11/1993
Doc Name
MEMO TO FILE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW STIPULATION TO CHANGE WATER MONITORING PLAN
From
DMG
To
FILE
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
.^ <br />~ ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />STATE OF COLOI~vv <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 2I5 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Phone 13031 866-3 567 <br />FA%~ (303) 832-8106 <br />MEMO TO FILE <br />FILE ,~: C-92-081 <br />OPERATOR: Peabody Coal Company <br />MINE: Hayden Gulch Loadout <br />DATE: May 11, 1993 <br />REC SPEC: Stephen Wathea <br />SUBJECT: Permit Application Review: <br />Stipulation to Change Water Monitoring Plan <br />OF' epCp <br />ti0 R <br />tir i {{(titi~rrp~~~ b <br />e .,., `~ ~~o '~ <br />Ruy Romer <br />Governor <br />Michael B. long <br />Div iaion Director <br />PERBONB CONTACTED: Dennis Jones <br />HOW CONTACTED: Person, Phone <br />I talked to Dennis in the field on May 8th and again today about <br />problems related to changing the water monitoring regime at the <br />loadout. <br />Current problems with the monitoring regime include: <br />1. Placement of the two alluvial wells, which are neither <br />upgradient or downgradient, respectively, of all disturbance <br />at the minesite. <br />2. These alluvial wells also intercept the Mancos shale which <br />interferes with ascertaining the water quality attributable <br />solely to the overlying alluvium. <br />3. The upstream stream monitoring site does not eliminate <br />contributions from a) farm irrigation, b) Stokes Gulch and c) <br />a small unnamed gulch coming in from the southeast, all of <br />which occur upstream of the loadout. <br />4. The downstream site is a good distance below the loadout and <br />may include contributions to Dry Creek other than from the <br />loadout. <br />All of these factors make it impossible to make meaningful causal <br />relationships between water quality and contributions from the <br />loadout. <br />Dennis noted the following points to support not changing the <br />current sampling regime or eliminating sampling all together: <br />1. Analysis of Wadge coal (reportedly the only coal to be <br />stockpiled at the loadout) demonstrates that waters leached <br />from coal stockpiled at the loadout will contribute far less <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.