Laserfiche WebLink
Good morning Mr. Stover, <br />The Division considers a water well as the same as a monitoring well and must comply with the well <br />transfer rule 4.05.14. <br />Jared <br />On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Jim Stover <jestover @bres n-net> wrote: <br />Jared: <br />have a question on one item in your letter. Rule 4.05.14 appears to be applicable to the conversion of a <br />monitoring well to a water well. The two Andrews monitoring wells will be converted to water wells (BW -2 and <br />BW -3). The two Reams wells (AW -5 and AW -7) will not be converted. They will remain monitoring wells. <br />Since the Ream's wells will not be converted to water wells, the letters required by Rule 4.05.14 should not be <br />required. Agree? <br />Jim Stover <br />J. E. Stover & Associates, Inc. <br />2352 N 7th St Unit B <br />Grand Junction, CO 81501 <br />Phone 970 - 245 -4101 <br />From: Ebert - DNR, Jared [ mailto:jared.ebert @state.co.us] <br />Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 10:23 AM <br />To: jestover @bresnan.net <br />Cc: jrichdelta @comcast.net; Alysha Hernandez - DNR; Mary Rodriguez - DNR <br />Subject: Hamilton Mine; C- 1991 -078; SO Adequacy Review No. 3 <br />Hello Mr. Stover, <br />Attached is a letter summarizing the adequacy issues that have been addressed to date and outstanding <br />issues that remain. The decision date for the release is December 31, 2012. If additional time is <br />necessary to address these remaining issues please request an extension of the decision date. A hard copy <br />of this letter is in the mail. <br />Thank you, <br />