My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-05-19_REPORT - C1981019
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2011-05-19_REPORT - C1981019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:33:41 PM
Creation date
5/23/2011 8:34:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
5/19/2011
Doc Name
2010 AHR Review
From
DRMS
To
Colowyo Coal Company
Annual Report Year
2010
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
Email Name
JHB
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.
/
2
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
5. Subparagraph (iii) - A written interpretation of the data is requested by the Division, per Rule <br />4.05.13(4)(c)(iii). This was agreed upon during review of the 2009 AHR. This should include, <br />but not be limited to, a discussion on relatively high values of TSS and Iron (in May for sites <br />NUGSC, UWFGSC, and LGSC) and potential impacts on receiving waters, namely Good Spring <br />Creek and Taylor Creek. <br />General Discussion <br />6. Please explain the term "Ambig. SW" that appears in the columns for metals in the data tables <br />(Exhibit 2A). <br />7. Exhibit 2A does not contain data for Lower Taylor Creek (LTC) for 2010. Please explain why <br />there is no data for this example, as well as explain any other gaps in the data. <br />General Trends <br />8. Given the low R2 values for surface water data and groundwater data, it unclear why the trend <br />lines are shown on the graphs. Also, some of the trends (increasing or decreasing) in the data <br />tables on pages 2-3 to 2-7 are not reliable given the R2 values. Please focus the discussion on the <br />trends that are significant and relate to impacts on receiving waters. These trends include, but are <br />not limited to, increases in TDS in well MT-95-02 and increases in several parameters at the <br />Gossard well. <br />9. As noted above, more discussion is needed on the data. In a letter from Colowyo (Jennifer <br />Sekulski-Barton, July 15, 2010), Colowyo agreed to provide a written interpretation of the water <br />monitoring data in the 2010 AHR. This shall include any mining related impacts and a discussion <br />on whether the data confirm or refute the probable hydrologic impact section of the permit. <br />Spoil Spring Development <br />10. The discussion on spoil springs requires more detail, including, but not limited to, a discussion of <br />Gulch A. <br />ADDITIONAL ISSUES (not directly related to AHR) <br />11. The permit lists six surface water sites, but the AHR only reports on four. Please explain this <br />discrepancy. <br />Please provide corrections and the requested information to the Division for incorporation in to the 2010 <br />AHR. Please let me know if you have any questions. <br />Sincerely, <br />Janet Bi s <br />Protection Specialist 11 <br />(303) 866-3567 ext. 8107 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.