Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r> <br />TDS is increasing in the Sage Creek alluvium, but there have not yet been discharges to <br />Sage Creek, since Pond 009 has not discharged. The increase, then, is not likely mine <br />related. <br />Seneca needs to address the following concerns regarding the AHR; <br />1. Tables 3 and 10 of the AHR should be revised in future reports to note the date <br />monitoring was discontinued at any given site. If a casing failed, a well was mined <br />through, beavers dammed the flow, etc.., the date of that occurrence should be noted. <br />2. Monitoring was discontinued at well GW-S2W-7A1 when the casing was destroyed. <br />Please inform the Division if Seneca Coal Company will be replacing this well. <br />3. It would be helpful if, in future reports, Seneca coal Company would include tables <br />of cumulative data for certain parameters at certain sites. Tables of all data to date <br />for TDS, Sulfate, and Suspended Solids would be helpful for the upstream and <br />downstream sites on Sage Creek, Dry Creek, and Hubberson Gulch. The Division <br />could also use tables of all data to date for TDS and Sulfate at the upgradient and <br />downgradient alluvial wells on Hubberson Gulch and Sage Creek and the Dry Creek <br />tributary alluvium. When attempting to compare monitoring results to predictions <br />in the PHC, a considerable amount of time is spent flipping from report to report to <br />find the data needed for the comparison. <br />Based on the Division's review of the 1995 AHR and previous reports, impacts to the <br />hydrologic balance resulting from the Seneca II-W Mine appear to be as predicted. <br />If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~~ J <br />Erica S. Crosby <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />c: \wp51 \se ne ca\961108 <br />