Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />sss <br />Interoffice <br />MEMORANDUM <br />to: Janet Binns <br />from: Ken[ Gorham ~h <br />subject: 1999 AHR, Eckman Park, #C-81-071 <br />date: August 30, 2000 <br />I have completed my review of the 1999 Annual Hydrology Report for [he Eckman Park, Mine I, and <br />Mine 2 operated by Colorado Yampa Coal Company as requested in your memo to Tom Kaldenbach <br />dated February 2, 2000. <br />Generally, the operator completed the required monitoring in accordance with the approved plan. <br />Report data was clearly presented and complete. However, one minor issue was noted. It appears <br />[hat negative reported values (which indicate below the detection limit) are being figured into the <br />average calculation. While it is appropriate to report an individual analysis returned a parameter value <br />that is less than the detection limit for that parameter, these values should not be included in the <br />calculation of the average and standard deviation. For an example, see Table 45A under iron, copper, <br />and molybdenum. This problem was identified following review of the 1998 AHR. Please correct <br />this problem in future reports beginning with the 2000 AHR. One possible solution is to use the <br />designation ND (for not detected) rather than the negative value convention. <br />Other general problems, errors, or omissions were noted as follows: <br />According to the table of contents, table 4B is water level data for well 006-82-74C. <br />However, data and labeling indicate table 4B is water level data for 009-5-10. <br />2. Tables SB, 6B, 7B, and 8B present water level data for 1999 rather than historic water level <br />data as indicated in the table of contents. <br />3. Datum elevations for tables 14, 15, and 16 and their associated graphs are incorrect. Well <br />completion data indicates datum values are 400-500 feet higher than depicted. <br />Please correct each of the above deficiencies and resubmit two copies of AHR pages as necessary. <br />Ground Water <br />Wadge overburden waters are degraded due to the migration of spoil water downdip of reclaimed pit <br />areas. (See well 006-82-74C) An exception to this are wells 94M001 and 94M002, downgradient of <br />[he Eckman Park area. These wells show no changes in quality similar to those expected by migrating <br />spoil waters. It could be that ground water movement is to the northeast at this location, moving <br />generally parallel to the reclaimed pit area. As addressed in the Phase III bond release findings for <br />Area 41 in Eckman Park, spoil aquifer location and elevation may explain the lack of any significant <br />