My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP03427
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP03427
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:34:14 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 10:30:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981044
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
6/3/2005
Doc Name
2004 AHR Response to Review Letter
From
BTU Empire Corporation
To
DMG
Annual Report Year
2004
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
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.
/
108
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
Peabody <br />BTU Empire Corporation <br />29515 Routt County Road #27 <br />Oak Creek, CO 80467 <br />970.879.3800 <br />DMG inspections. Based upon the above, no significant subsidence effects were suspected <br />in 2004. <br />g. Janet Binns can verify that BTU Empire has not submitted a Phase III bond release <br />application to date. A bond release application is being contemplated for the Utah Tract and <br />Williams Fork Strip Pit portions of the property. We have recently spoken to Janet Binns <br />about this. If bond release applications are submitted for these areas, BTU Empire will <br />submit a TR to the Temporary Cessation requesting that Empire reverts back to the active <br />monitoring plan only for those monitoring sites located on the portion of property undergoing <br />release. A bond release request is not anticipated for other portions of the property within the <br />next two years. Peabody will be examining the feasibility of re-starting the mine in the <br />future and anticipates submitting an NOI for exploration. <br />Either a table, or text explanation similar to that above will be included under the conclusion section in <br />future AHRs. <br />3. Two copies of the updated table are attached. <br />4. The abandonment report was submitted to DMG under Technical Revision TR94-25. <br />• 5. A minor revision will be submitted to the DMG site case officer, Janet Binns. <br />Monitorne Frequency: <br />6. See attached copy of current CDPS permit CO-0034142. <br />7. The statement under Section 3.2.3 is in error. That page which has been revised to say: "With <br />the exception of Outfall 003 (discussed under section 3.1.2), there was no discharge from <br />sediment ponds in 2004." (see attached). Outfall 024 (a.k.a. 7 North Angle site and 9P3) did not <br />discharge in 2004 as noted in section 3.1.2 and in Table 9. Outfall 022 (a.k.a. site 1SP), is a <br />spring. This site is discussed in section 3.2.2. There is no sediment pond associated with this <br />spring. Spring water runs down a narrow path through a vegetative filter and discharges directly <br />to the Williams Fork River. This explanation will be included within the text of future AFIRs. <br />Surface Water Monitoring: <br />8. WF-1 and WF-2 samples were collected by a Peabody consultant on 7-27-04 (See attached lab <br />reports). Reports for these sites will be included in future AIIRs. It has come to my attention that <br />tables 13 and 15 (WF-1 and WF-2, respectively) in the 2004 AHR inadvertently contained 2003 <br />data. Updated tables and Figure 8 are attached. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.