My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP32361
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP32361
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:08:30 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 6:12:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980004
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
4/19/1995
Doc Name
1994 ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC REPORT C-80-004 AND 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.
/
3
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 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman $1.. Room 275 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: 1703) 866-3567 <br />FA%~ 1703) 832-8106 <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 />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Ruy Romer <br />Governor <br />lames 5. Lochhead <br />E+ecuhve Dueaor <br />Mrchaet 8 Lung <br />Dnisiun Ducclor <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 />S i ncer~ <br />~, a <br />/ ~/c <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.