REP39561

• Permit No: C1982057
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 6/9/2000
• Doc Name: MEMO SENECA II-W PN C-82-057 1999 ANNAUL HYDROLOGY REPORT REVIEW
• From: DMG
• To: SANDRA BROWN
• Permit Index Doc Type: HYDROLOGY REPORT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
999
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman SL, Room 215
Denier, Colorado 80203 DIVISION o E
Phone: [phone] MINERAL S
FA);: [phone] &
GEOLOGY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ( R E C L A M A T I O N
MI NING•SAFETY
Bill O+rens
Governor
Greg E Watcher
TO: Sandra Brown ExeNlrve Director
Michael B. Long
FROM: Mike Boulay ~ PS Division Dneaor
DATE: June 9, 2000
SUBJECT: Seneca II-W -Permit No. C-82-057, 1999 Annual Hydrology Report Review
I have reviewed Seneca Coal Company's (BCC's) 1999 Annual Hydrology Report (AHR) for the
Seneca II-W Mine. The report is well written and the data are presented in a concise manner.
However, several deviations from the approved monitoring plan were noted for the frequency of
data collection.
SCC adequately addressed the Division's comments on the 1998 AHR by incorporating
responses into the 1999 AHR. The Division has the following comments concerning the 1999
AHR. These comments could be inserted directly into a review letter to the operator.
1. With approval of PR02, SCC committed to conducting semiannual (June and September)
monitoring at site SW-S2W-SG9, SW-S2W-SG16, and SW-S2W-SG17. On page 12 of the AHR,
SCC states [hat these sites are not part of the required monitoring program. Please ensure that
sampling resumes at these sites according to the approved hydrologic monitoring program for the
2000 calendar year.
2. Water level information was not provided for August at GW-S2W-4W and GW-S2W-
4WCgroundwater monitoring locations. Water level data was not obtained in August and
OctobedNovember and water quality data was not provided for OctobedNovember for well
location GW-S2W-40V 1. Triannual water level monitoring was no[ provided for well location
GW-S2W-40V2.
3. Semiannual water quality data were no[ provided for spring S-47. Discharge information
and water quality data were not provided for spring 5-49.
4. On page IS of the 1999 AHR, SCC indicates [hat TDS values from Site SW-S2W-FG4
would be more appropriate for determining Sage Creek premining load determination for TDS.
The current PHC calculation for determining impacts to Sage Creek utilizes data from Site SW-