Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmenl or Naeural Resources <br />1313 Sherman SL, Room 215 <br />Denver. Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: 1303)866-3567 <br />AX~ (103) 8328106 <br />ovember 16, 2000 <br />Mr. Rick Mills <br />Colorado Yampa Coal Company <br />29587 Routt Counry Road No. 27 <br />Oak Creek, CO 80467 <br />STATE OF COLOT~DO <br />FOR YOUR CORRESPONDENCE FILE <br />DIVISION OF <br />MINERALS <br />GEOLOGY <br />RECLAMATION <br />MINING•SAFETY <br />Bill Owens <br />Governor <br />Greg E. Wolcher <br />E reculrve DveUOr <br />Re: Eckman Park, Mine I & 2, C-81-071, 1999 Annual Reclamation Re ort Res onses micnael e. EonR <br />P P Divi,IOn D~re~~or <br />Dear Mr. Mills: <br />The Division has reviewed Colorado Yampa Coal Company's September 12, 2000 response to the Division's <br />September 6, 2000 questions regarding the Eckman Park, Mine No. I and Mine No. 2's 1999 Annual Hydrology <br />Report (AHR). Colorado Yampa Coal Company adequately addressed item numbers I and 2 from the Division's <br />September 6, 2000 letter. However no response was received for two items noted in the Division's September 6, <br />2000 letter. These concerns are reiterated below: <br />Generally, the operator completed the required monitoring in accordance with the approved plan. Report data <br />was clearly presented and complete. However, one minor issue was noted. It appears that negative reported <br />values (which indicate below the detection limit) are being figured into the average calculation. While it is <br />appropriate to report an individual analysis returned a parameter value that is less than the detection limit for <br />that parameter, these values should not be included in the calculation of the average and standard deviation. <br />For an example, see Table 45A under iron, copper, and molybdenum. This problem was identified following <br />review of the 1998 AHR. Please correct this problem in future reports beginning with the 2000 AHR. One <br />possible solution is to use the designation ND (for not detected) rather than the negative value convention. <br />Item no. 3 from the Division's September 6, 2000 letter was not addressed: <br />3. Datum elevations for tables l4, I5, and 16 and their associated graphs are incorrect. Well completion data <br />indicates datum values are 400-500 feet higher[han depicted. <br />Please correct each of the above deficiencies and resubmit two copies of AHR pages as necessary. If you need <br />any clarification of the remaining items, please call. <br />Sincerely, <br />inns <br />~men[al Protection Specialist <br />C:/jhb/c81071/1999 ahr 2.doc <br />Cc: Dan Hernandez <br />Kent Gorham <br />