My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR12259
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
2000
>
APPCOR12259
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:38 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:28:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981015
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
7/2/1986
Doc Name
REVIEW OF BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FRUITA MINE COMPLEX FN C-83-061 C-84-064 C-84-066 CENTRAL EAST
From
MLRD
To
AMERICAN SHIELD COAL CO
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.
/
13
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 /> <br />-. <br />Ltr/Revw Bsln Env Data - 3 - July 2, 1986 <br />(A). The nomenclature for the wells plotted on Map 2.04.7-2 <br />(December, 1983) should be identical to that used in Tables 2.04.7-1A <br />and 2.04.7-2A (July, 1985). Furthermore, Appendix B (July, 1985) <br />should also be revised to reflect the well numbers used in Table <br />2.04.7-1A. Each well and spring should be referred to by the same <br />number throughout the permit application. <br />(B). Wells CM-3, F-59W(OB}, F-59W(UA) were reported to be blocked at <br />depth in November, 1984. The applicant should address the present <br />status of these wells, and the anticipated status (abandonment, <br />recovery) of these sites. Furthermore, if the wells are abandoned, the <br />applicant should commit to new monitoring locations (geographic) and <br />horizons (stratigraphic intervals). <br />(C). We11 F-56C was not sampled in November, 1984, due to an <br />obstruction at depth. The applicant should address the present and <br />anticipated status of this well, and state whether water level <br />measurements may still be made. If the well can no longer be sampled, <br />the operator should commit to a new monitoring location (geographic) <br />and the stratigraphic interval to be observed. <br />(D). No baseline ground water data for lower Big Salt Wash has been <br />presented. The operator is strongly urged to develop, after consulting <br />with the Division, a baseline monitoring program in Big Salt Wash below <br />the confluence with Coal Gulch. <br />(E). Due to the limited and non-continuous nature of the ground <br />water data presented, very little interpretation may be made. It is <br />strongly suggested that the operator, after consulting with the <br />Division, reinitiate monitoring of alluvial wells in Coal Gulch and <br />upper Big Salt Wash. The applicant should monitor the wells for one <br />continuous year. This depth-to-water monitoring should be done in <br />conjunction with water quality sampling at each site. <br />(F ). To adequately monitor and interpret the ground water regime, <br />monitoring of wells and springs should be conducted continuously for <br />one year. The monitoring of water quality, discharge and/or <br />depth-to-water should occur on a basis {e. g., monthly or quarterly) <br />which most closely mirrors projected local and/or regional climatic and <br />hydrologic trends. <br />(G). The applicant should include a thorough discussion pertaining <br />to the interpretation of the water quality sampling conducted in 1984. <br />(H). Springs tabulated in Table 2.04.7-13A should be categorized by <br />Formation rather than lithology. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.