My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP30741
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP30741
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:01:14 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 5:42:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981020
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
4/19/1995
Doc Name
1994 ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC REPORT C-80-004 & C-81-020
From
DMG
To
GRAND VALLEY COAL CO
Annual Report Year
1994
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
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Oeparlmenl of Nawral Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 115 <br />Denver, Colorado d0201 <br />Phone (30318663567 <br />FAl(: 13031 Bl1-d 106 <br />April 19, 1995 <br />Mr. John Walters <br />Grand Valley Coal Company <br />P.O. Box 70 <br />Loma, Colorado 81524-0070 <br />RE: 1994 Annual Hydrologic Report (C-80-004 and C-81-020) <br />Dear Mr. Walters: <br />II~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Ru/ Romer <br />Govcrno~ <br />Wmee 5. lrx hheaA <br />E.ec W ive Direnor <br />Mrchael B. Long <br />Div isiun Dueam <br />The Division has reviewed the referenced 1994 Annual Hydrologic <br />Report and found it to be in compliance with permit requirements as <br />outlined in the applicable findings documents. Data and <br />interpretations included in the report appear to be consistent with <br />PHC projections. <br />The suggestion in the text of the report to discontinue monitoring <br />well GW-4 and substitute monitoring of GW-3 would appear to be <br />reasonable. The proposal should be submitted as a technical <br />revision to the McClane and Munger applications. <br />Finally, as I had previously discussed with you, there appear to be <br />some discrepancies between the currently approved monitoring plans <br />as described in the pertinent findings documents for both mines, <br />and the monitoring plans as described in the permit volumes on file <br />in Grand Junction. I would suggest that, in concert with the <br />proposed technical revision and the upcoming midterm for Munger <br />Canyon, we endeavor to ensure that the monitoring plans set forth <br />in the application documents correspond to the monitoring plans <br />specified in the findings documents. <br />Please contact me if you have any questions. <br />Sincer~ ~/cL~ <br />Dan T. Mathews <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />cc: Larry Routten, DMG <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.