Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Current Division Response: <br />The Division reminds CYCC that collection and accurate reporting of hydrologic data are <br />required by [he Rules. <br />Current CYCC Response: <br />CYCC will collect and accurately report hydrologic data as required by [he Rules. <br />5. Original Division Question: <br />The following springs were identified as Flowing greater than 35 gpm in May of 1994: A- <br />2, C-I, D comp, E ,and OVB #I. <br />CYCC Response: <br />The flow for spring OVB# I in May 1994 is shown on page 2 of 2 Table 47 in the 1994 <br />AHR as 24.2 gpm. No additional monitoring is required with flow at this level until the <br />following May. <br />Current Division Response: <br />Table 47 reveals that spring OVB# I was flowing at 0.265 cfs which equates to 118 gpm. <br />This puts spring OVB# 1 well within the range of required monitoring. Apparently there is <br />a discrepancy in the conversion done in the table. Please respond accordingly. <br />Current CYCC Response: <br />Examination of Table 4T and the field book indicates that the depth of flow at OVB# I in a <br />I" Baski Flume on 5/10794 was 0?3'. This deptfi of flow equates to a flow of 0.0265 cfs or <br />24.2 gpm which is below the 35 gpm cutoff for additional monitoring. It appears that there <br />was a typographical error in Table 47 under the Flow (cfs) column for OVB# 1 and a 0 was <br />left out after the decimal point. <br />Please contact me at (970) 870-2750 if you have any questions or require any further information. <br />COLORADO YAMPA COAL COMPANY <br />~~ //- <br />Tavis D. Rogers, P.E. <br />Environmental Engineer <br />is\Environ\Document\Ahr\Eckman\95 rsp#2.doc <br />