2010-11-29_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088

• Permit No: C2010088
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 11/29/2010
• Doc Name: Adequacy Review Questions and Comments
• From: Joe Dudash
• To: Mike Boulay
• Email Name: MPB
• Email Name: JJD
• Email Name: SB1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215 C O L O R A D O
Denver, Colorado 80203 DIVISION o F
Phone: [phone] RECLAMATION
FAX: [phone] M I N I N G
- St-
SAFETY
Date: November 29, 2010
Bill Ritter, Jr.
Governor
Mike King
To: Mike Boulay Executive Director

h
d
D
J Loretta E. Pineda
Director
as
oe
u
From:
RE: Fruita Loado , ermit No. C-2010-088, CAM Colorado LLC
New Permit Application, Surface Water Adequacy Review
I have finished my adequacy review of the surface water aspects of the new permit application for the
Fruita Loadout. The following are my adequacy review questions and comments:
1. Rule 2.04.7(2)(a) requires that the baseline surface water data show seasonal variations in the
quantity and quality of the surface water. However, only two quarters of the baseline surface
water data are presented in Exhibit 3 of Volume II. Please submit additional baseline surface
water data in compliance with Rule 2.04.7(2)(a).
2. Under Rule 2.04.7(2)(a) on permit text page 2.04-18, please expand on the discussion of the
Colorado River, including how the river might affect or be affected by the loadout disturbances.
3. Under Rule 2.04.7(2)(b), please add the flow data to surface water monitoring station DS-CR in
Exhibit 3 of Volume I.
4. Due to its proximity to the Colorado River, please describe in Section 2.04.7 what the historical
record is for flooding or having an elevated ground water table in the permit area.
5. On permit text pages 2.04-21 and 2.04-22 of Section 2.04.7(3), it is stated that the Bittle
Springs nos. 1 through 6 are hydraulically separated from the loadout disturbance due to the
Loma Drain. Please explain why these springs could not be affected by ground water
contamination from the loadout disturbance.
6. On permit text pages 2.04-23 and 2.04-24 of Section 2.04.7(3), it is stated that the monitoring
wells that are located to the east of the permit area do not need water rights protection since
they are upgradient and outside of the area that could be affected. Please discuss the possibility
that the monitoring wells could be affected by ground water contamination from the coal
stockpile and coal handling areas.
7. In Section 2.04.7(4)(b) of page 2.04-26, it is stated that the current surface water users are the
landowners who irrigate the land west of Loma Drain and north of State Highway 6 & 50.
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines