My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP05200
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP05200
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:36:11 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 11:00:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981020
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
1/31/1996
Doc Name
MCCLANE & MUNGER 1995 AHRS FN C-80-004 MCCLANE & C-81-020 MUNGER
From
DMG
To
BARBARA PAVLIK
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
Ill IIIII11111111111 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />D{VISlON OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmeni of Natural Resources <br />131 3 Sherman 51., Room 215 <br />Denver. ColoraAo 80203 <br />Phone. 17031 866-3567 <br />FAx:i30318J2-BIOh <br />DATE: January 31, 1996 <br />TO: Barbara Pavli/k~.Y/~1 <br />FROM: Dan Mathews L ~/ <br />RE: McClane and Munger 1995 AHR's <br />File No. C-80-004 (McClane), and C-81-020 (Munger) <br />I~~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />fames 5. Lochhead <br />Esecmive Director <br />Michael P. long <br />Uwuion D~ceaor <br />I have conducted a preliminary review of the referenced AHR's <br />(enclosed), and verified that monitoring frequency for the various <br />surface and ground water sites was conducted in compliance with the <br />required schedule, and required parameters were analyzed. I am <br />requesting your review of the report with regard to whether the <br />monitoring indicates that observed effects are in accordance with <br />PHC projections. <br />Note that data for Well GW-3 was reported this year, in <br />anticipation of submittal of a TR to substitute GW-3 for GW-4, <br />which would be dropped from the monitoring plan. Also note that <br />Well GW-6 was dry all year, as it has been since it was installed <br />several years ago. I believe the original intent of this well was <br />to document baseline conditions at the proposed refuse disposal <br />site prior to initiation of waste disposal. Is there any reason <br />for continued monitoring of this dry well, or could it be <br />discontinued until refuse disposal is initiated? <br />Let me know if you have any questions. <br />Thanks. <br />me\95mcmnhr.mem <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.