REP34935

• Permit No: C1982057
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 4/13/1995
• Doc Name: SENECA II-W MINE C-82-057 1994 ANNUAL HYDROLOGY REPORT
• From: DMG
• To: SENECA COAL CO
• Permit Index Doc Type: HYDROLOGY REPORT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanment of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman 51., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
April 13, 1995
iii iiiiiiiiiiiii iii
STATE OF COLORADO
I~~~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES

Dennis Jones Ray Romer
cavemar
Hydrologist lames 5. Lochhead
Seneca Coal Company Eaeculive Director
P.O. Drawer D Michael 8. long
Hayden, Colorado 81639 Division Director
RE: Seneca II-W Mine (C-82-057)
1994 Mnual Hydrology Report
Dear Mr. Jones:
The Division has received and reviewed the 1994 annual hydrology report (AHR) for the Seneca
II-W Mine. Overall, .the report was thorough and very well organized. As a result of its review,
the Division has the following comments:
1. The narrative of the report indicates that the map of monitoring sites should be removed
form the 1993 AHR, and placed in the 1994 report. We understand that the mad is the
same as the 1993 map, but tf it is removed from the 1993 report, a person reviewing only
the 1993 report would not have access to the map, nor would the 1993 report include a
reference for the location of the map. Therefore, in the interest of facilitating public
review of these re orts, the Division will request that Seneca Coal Company provide two
additional maps for placement in the 1994 reports.
2. Appendix Al includes drillhole abandonment forms for wells abandoned this past
September. The forms do not include all of the information required by Rule 4.07.3(3),
such as the location, depth, diameter, and elevation of the hole; the intervals where water
was encountered, name of the drilling contractor and drill rig license number, or how the
hole was worked. Please revise the abandonment forms so that they comply with the
requirements of Rule 4.03.3(3).
3. Appendices C, D, and E include data for each monitoring site. Some of the headings of
some of the data tables list monitoring site numbers that do not appear in the list of
monitoring sites in the Seneca I[-W Permit application, or in the text of the report. It
appears that some of the site identification numbers may be for the Yoast Mine. The
Division was able to determine the equivalent Seneca II-W locations, but someone less
familiar with site might not be able to do so. In future reports, please either use the
same site identification numbers approved in the permit application, or pprovide
information in the report that indicates how the sites correspond to the Seneca I[-W sites.
4. The text of the report included a summary of all 1994 monitoring data and how those
findings compared to baseline conditions. This information was especially helpful in
reviewing the report and determining what, if any, impact the mining operation has had
on surface and ground water. Comparisons to baseline conditions and the explanations
provided for deviations from those conditions were conceivable and well documented.