Laserfiche WebLink
11/18/2014 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: Status of Water monitoring boreholes <br />STATE, OF Hernandez - DNR Alysha <aysha- hernandez @state- co -us> <br />COL,ORAI, <br />Zuber - DNR, Rob <rob.zuber @state.co.us> Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:56 PM <br />To: Alysha Hernandez - DNR <alysha.hernandez @ state.co.us> <br />Alysha — <br />Please file this Southfield email under Public Correspondence and name it "Email from Linda Saunders." <br />Thanks, <br />Me <br />---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- <br />From: Zuber - DNR, Rob <rob.zuber @state.co.us> <br />Date: Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 2:02 PM <br />Subject: Re: Status of Water monitoring boreholes <br />To: Linda Saunders <saunders615 @live.com> <br />Linda - <br />When referencing holes that should not be sealed, Janet was referring to structures listed in the water monitoring <br />plan. These are usually called wells, but Janet called them "boreholes." In her use of the word, the word <br />borehole is very general and includes exploration boreholes, wells, etc. Sorry for the confusion. <br />Information on water in the monitoring wells is described in the AHRs. Drill hole abandonment reports for other <br />holes may contain information on water in the holes or it may not. They need to comply with the requirements <br />of the Division of Water Resources. I suggest you look at these requirements. <br />Your second question is related to the violation, CV2013002. This has yet to be resolved, but I will say that <br />there is a possibility that there was water below the obstruction that was not monitored. That is why we wrote <br />the violation: the obstruction precludes someone from determining if there was or was not water below that point <br />in the well. <br />e <br />Rob Zuber, P <br />01 <br />https: / /mail.googl e.com /m ai I /u/0 / ?ui =2 &i k= e29129fcb5 &view =pt &search= i nbox &th= 149bf8abO5c2e640 &si m l= 149bf8abO5c2e640 1/5 <br />