REP05669

• Permit No: C1984062
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 5/18/1998
• Doc Name: 1997 AHR REVIEW
• From: DMG
• To: COLO YAMPA COAL CO
• Annual Report Year: 1997
• Permit Index Doc Type: HYDROLOGY REPORT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• • iii iiiiiiiiniii iii
J , 999
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Drpanmcnl ul Natural Resources
1 J I {Sherman 51., Ruum ? I S `y

Denver, ColnraJo fl0?O3 I
~~

Phunc: (1031 Nbh-J 5h7 II
FAA: 1 illJl 8J~-Hl llh
May 18
1998 DEPARTMEMf OF
, NATURAL
Mr. Richard Mills RESOURCES
Colorado Yampa Coal Company Roy Romer

29515 Routt County Road No. 27 Governor

Oak Creek, CO 80467 lames 5 Lochhead
a+ecmive oneUOr
Michael B Long
RE: Mine No. 3, C-84-062, 1997 Annual Hydrology Report Review Division Dveclur
Dear Mr. Mills:
The Division has reviewed Colorado Yampa Coal Company's 1997 Annual Hydrology Report.
The following concerns were noted during the review:
Colorado Yampa Coal Company did not complete the spoil spring monitoring during the
month of May 1497 in accordance with the monitoring plan. Spoil springs were visited
on June 13, and 17, 1997. The approved plan calls for a full suite quality sample if the
spoil spring is discharging greater than 35 gpm during the month of May. By delaying
sampling into June, it is not clear whether the springs had sufficient flow to require a full
suite sample .
Please assure that the spoil monitoring plan for 1998 is implemented according to the
approved plan. The Division is in receipt of an application for Phase II and III bond
release for the Mine 3 permit, and this application is currently under review. Until final
approval of the release has been granted, sampling according to the approved monitoring
plan must be followed.
2. Bedrock wells, alluvial wells, spoil wells, and surface water sites were visited and
sampled in accordance with the approved plan.
3. Surface site, located on Middle Creek, is a rated site rather than a site measured through a
controlled section, such as a flume. It is located downstream from the confluence of
Middle Creek and Foidel Creek, consequently downstream of sites 700 and 900.
Flow at site 29 should approximate the total flow of site 700 and site 900. Data collected
from the three sites on March 25, 1997, May 5, i 997, and August 20, 1997 show a
significant difference between the sum of the site 900 and site 700 flows and the value
recorded for site 29. It is likely that the rating curve at site 29 is not representative of the
actual flow at site 29. Please review the rating curve for site 29 and provide corrected
flow values based upon the corrected rating curve, or provide an explanation of the