REV99334 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M~. Muh~d Baday Dicisicn orMcterats and Gmlogy /mmny 1.4, 1999 Page 9 The same basic question was asked in the CDMG's Augtsst 7, 1998 letter concerning the Seneca II-W Mid-Term Review, Items 16 and 17. SCC addressed those concerns in a letter dated December 8, 1998 (7R-32). The reader is referred to that document. Basically stated, the Trout Creek sandstone is a confined aquifer chat is hydraulically separated from the Wadge coal seam by 277 feet of interbedded shales. Comment 26 -It appears dxtt matiunveg wa!'s-08V7, 4W, 48Vf, and 4WC am laatsl rn ury dose prosrntiry to dx pntlOSel pit Gxatda,y rn tl~e II-W Sotrlh Amu. Will arty of tlxse udls be crtjncteiar nmottrl by mining? If so, please proaide dr Dnnsicn vnth a cvrtnt~axYP~frn mplamrrrn of these veils if they Ettvne inoperable or rem~tal ~~ As shown on Exhibits 7-1, 7-2A, 7-3A and 12-3, the wells are located to the west of the pit boundaries and, therefore, are not expected to be impatted or removed by mining activities. If, prior to actual muting in this location, it becomes apparent that these wells could be impatted the Division will be contacted and a mutually agreeable contingenry plan will be developed and implemented. Comment 27 -Surface weer rrnvmrczg site SW-S2W-SG9 ptmiafes tlx only upstmmn rrrmitovtg priru az Hublxrxm Guld~ afpte arty mine disuer&vue. This site lxts bmt ittitrally sampfal forvxuer quality and floe, but has not b~ indudel in tlx amatt h~dtts'ogtcmaritrnvtg program ~Talate 1, page 15-3a-2J. The Dirasion fxlieces that this is an nryortin7t matimrotg laatiot for cnttpmatite analysts virtyi mouturptg loraticozs dorm gradtatt of dzsurr(al auras. please ccatstiler adding this !oration to the anmru nna[itrnvtg program for mmthly rizulaatge meznsmrreus and semiaraara! water qualuy analysis. If appropriate, please moire Tabs 7 and I S acrotrl~rgfy. SCC provided data from Site SG9 in order to define baseline conditions. Those conditions have now been defined and are unlikely to change. The drainage basin area above this site is only approximately one square mile and consists of rangeland with very little potential for development. Comment 28 -Please dirk thx calaJaticrts cot Table 17-31, arrl make mntt[itcocs if dcv»el app>optiare. In pat:iadm; the esttmatel pit rrtflOwfor }ear 2001 tit fnth the Wadge Otedsnrlat aquifer and tlx Wadge Coal aqu fer aplrar to Ix high/rnxr esttmatei Utilizing tie equatiat Q=KL9 and dx data for 2001 pmsentel in the tafate, the Division obratizs tlx fo//areceg enlr~ 1,493 gal/day and 709 gal/day for tlx Wadge Oter&rtd0t and Wadge Qa/ aquifers, xspe<YZtxly. If SC>r's caladatimrs Heel to Ee rrcdifie~ please dxrk to make sum that otlxr dssaissions and caladaticou in Tab 17 am acorrate /n partiaJar, please zetijy tJx dtsaasians on pages 90 and 93, and tlx dettiral lcadzrtg ¢rladatiorts cot pages 93 and 94. The year 2000 pit is immediately upgradient and complete}y overlapping the year 2001 pit configuration (see Exhibit 12-3). Hence, the upgradient pit lengths for the year 2001 pit excluded the upgradient pit wall for the year 2000 pit, and the discharge estimate for the year 2000 pit wa_c simply added (as a "vtnstcase" scenario for each annual discharge estimate) to the 2001 discharge estimates. Therefore, if the discharge estimates calcttlated herein by DMG for the year 2001 are added to those calculated in Table 17-31 for the year 2000, the sum will equal the total discharge values presented for the yeaz 2001 in the table. To clarify this issue, the upgradient pit length for the year 2001 has been edited to include the pit length for the year 2000 pit (i.e., the upgradient pit length for the yeaz 2000 pit has been added to the current upgradient pit length for the year 2001 pit). This will result in correct discharge values using Darry calculations with direct variables presented in Table 17-31. Please excuse the confusion.