REP19234 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-~ III II~III!I~II~~ III STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources t 31 7 Sherman A ,Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: p031 8663567 FA%:13031832-8106 DATE: November 29, 1995 TO: Larry Routten FROM: Dan Mathews ~~~ RE: Red Canyon 1995 Annual Hydrologic Report File C-81-034 I~~~~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Roy Romer Governor lames 5 Lochhead Eaxuure Direaoi Michael B. LOng Division DireUOr Enclosed is a copy of the recently submitted AHR, along with a review checklist that I filled out and pertinent background information from the file. As documented in the review checklist, I have verified that all monitoring and reporting currently required by the permit was performed, and included in the AHR. I believe past AHR's are on file in a binder on the public shelves along with the permit application package, and the enclosed AHR should be filed there when the review is completed. The midterm review for Red Canyon is due January 12, 1995, and I would request that AHR review comments, along with any additional surface and groundwater comments pertinent to the Midterm be sent to me by that date. I dont anticipate needing further assistance on the midterm at this time. I am requesting a review of the report by appropriate team hydrologists with respect to the report's analyses and conclusions pursuant to the PHC. Also, the mine will be eligible for final bond release in 1999, and I would request that the reviewing hydrologists give some consideration to final bond release requirements in reviewing the monitoring plan. Monitoring of water level in Coal Seam Piezometer E-1, and monitoring of TDS and SAR in upper and lower Ward Creek is not required by permit, but has been conducted the last couple of years in response to Division recommendations. Should this monitoring be continued? Christine Johnston had requested in an AHR review letter dated January 25, 1995, that water level in Coal Seam Piezometer E-3 also be monitored during 1995. Jim Stover indicates that he was not able to monitor this well because it had been "destroyed" by the landowner. Stover said that he did not think Well E-3 was a critical component of the monitoring network. Is Stover correct, or do we need data from this well? Christine may have an opinion on this.