ENFORCE34824

• Permit No: C1982056
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 10/10/2006
• Doc Name: DOW Concurrence Letter for Step 7 Abatement
• From: DRMS
• To: Twentymile Coal Company
• Violation No.: CV2006006
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Walker, Byron
From: Hernandez, Dan
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:32 AM
To: Jerry Nettleton
Cc: Walker, Byron; Berry, David; Brown, Sandy; [e-mail]; Green, Nathan J SPK;
[e-mail]; Henry Austin; Howard Strand
Subject: Status of Twentymile Coal Company NOV
Hi, Jerry. DOW has submitted their concurrence of Minor Revision MR-211 (below). This is the proposed plan for
cleaning up the coal fines spill in Foidel Creek. We received the concurrence last Friday, October 6, 2006, and as
such consider Step 7 of CDRMS Notice of Violation CV-2006-006 to have been abated as of that date. We will in
addition be approving MR-211 today. Remaining NOV abatement steps as of this writing are 6a, 6b, 6e, 6f, 8, 9,
10, and 11.
Thanks for your diligence in working to resolve this NOV.
Dan
From: Walker, Byron
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:05 AM
To: Hernandez, Dan
Subject: FW: Foidel creekl.doc
From: Werner, Susan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 5:01 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Foidel creekl.doc
You will be getting a hazd copy of this in the mail next week.
Susan Werner
970-871-2842
October 6, 2006
Byron G, Walker
Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety
1313 Sherman Street, Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Re: Twentymile Coal Company Minor Revision
Dear Mr. Walker.
On September 13, 2006 Aquatic Biologist Bill Atkinson conducted a site inspection of Foidel Creek in relation to
the coal slurry deposition. Foidel Creek was electro shocked for presence or absence of aquatic life
approximately 400 feet above the coal slurry deposition. This area of the creek consisted of pools with no surface
flow observed. Numerous Creek Chubs (Semorilus arromacula[usJ were sampled upstream of the spill.
Approximately 1.5 to 2 miles below the coal slurry deposition Creek Chubs were also observed. Therefore, we
can assume there was a loss of aquatic life where the coal slurry was deposited. [t would be extremely hard to
quantify the amount of loss within the deposition area.
10/10/2006