My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP18294
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP18294
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:47:10 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 2:22:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
12/9/1985
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO ECKMAN PARK AND MINE 3 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING REPORT
From
COLORADO YAMPA COAL CO
To
MLRD
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
~, ~Uerr ~~', <br />_.~ <br />Colorado Yampa Coal Company <br />fleo~s~~~~~U~,. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <br />CYCC <br />29588 Routt County Road #27, Oak Creek. CO 80467 • (303) 879.3800 <br />December 2, 1985 <br />~ECEI~E~ <br />Mr. Robert G. Liddle fl~C 9 ~S <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division MINED U1ND RFC(q <br />423 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street 0010. OeW. Ot Atarursl ~ undN <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Re: Response to Eckman Park and Mine 3 Hydrologic Monitoring Report <br />Dear Mr. Liddle: <br />The purpose of this letter is to summarize our discussions of November <br />14, 1985 regarding your letters of October 4 and October 18, 1985, on the <br />Eckman Park and Mine 3 Hydrologic Monitoring concerns. This letter will not <br />serve as a complete response to your concerns but will contain our position on <br />how we intend to respond to your concerns. <br />Eckman Park Letter <br />Concern A - Sampling Methodologies <br />CYCC does not believe that the "major problems" you refer to exist; in <br />fact, we believe your statement prematurely implies that there are questions <br />regarding the reliability of data CYCC has collected. As we pointed out to <br />you, we consider your comments only partially correct. For example, the fil- <br />ter paper question or usage of iced samples has no bearing on the total <br />species listed collected to satisfy CDOH NPDES monitoring requirements. Also, <br />your letter strongly suggests that the USGS has rejected our database for <br />scientific reasons when the most important reason they chose not to include <br />the data into their database is political. Regardless of source or level of <br />scientific accuracy, non-USGS data is rarely ever included into their computer <br />system. <br />We acknowledge, however, that the concerns raised over bailing of wells, <br />filter paper usage and icing of samples need to be evaluated. We will be <br />addressing these concerns in a more detailed manner in a submittal which will <br />include an overall analysis of our entire hydrologic monitoring program, in- <br />cluding an explanation of all historic monitoring techniques. An analysis of <br />parameters which might be affected will also be submitted along with a set of <br />methods which will be based upon acceptable methods used by the scientific <br />community. In the meantime, CYCC will be bailing ground water monitor wells, <br />discontinue the reusage of filter paper and commit to ice all future samples <br />which require icing. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.