REP32130

• Permit No: C1980005
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 12/9/1992
• Doc Name: SENECA II MINE C-80-005 1991 ANNUAL HYDROLOGY REPORT ADEQUACY CONCERNS
• From: DMG
• To: SUSAN MORRISON
• Permit Index Doc Type: HYDROLOGY REPORT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~ ~
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources oF'CO~
~~
f
Ne ~ 0
1313 Sherman SI., Room 215 ,r
~
~
Denver, CO 80203 .
~,
Phone: p03) 866-3567 ' revs
FAX: [phone]
Roy Rimer
Governor
DATE: December 9, 1992 Michael d. Long
D m¢mn DueUUr
TO: Susan Morrison
FROM: Stephen WathenG~
RE: Seneca II Mine (C-80-005)
1991 Annual Hydrology Report Adequacy Concerns
I have had the opportunity to review in detail the 1991 Annual
Hydrology Report. The following are my comments:
Peabody Coal has done a commendable job of summarizing their
surface water hydrology monitoring for the year. I found
particularly valuable their summary of exceedances* of stream
standards by site for the year, their tracking of total dissolved
solids since 1981 and their tracking of trends in milliequivalent
for major ions since 1981.
In reviewing any annual hydrology report, it is the Division's
responsibility to examine the data for that year for exceedances of
stream receiving standards or NPDES permit requirements. A listing
of exceedances by site for the year, as was done by Peabody,
assists us in fulfilling this responsibility.**
In reviewing an annual hydrology report, it is also the Division's
responsibility to examine the data from that year in relation to
historical trends in the data in order to ascertain whether
individual parameters are increasing, decreasing or stabilizing
over time, as was predicted in the "Probable Hydrologic
Consequences" section of the operation's permit. In this vein,
Peabody's listing of data since 1981 for both total dissolved
solids and milliequivalent for major ions was very helpful.
The Division would like to request that Peabody Coal Company
consider presenting the data for some additional parameters (for
specific sites) in the context of its historical data since 1981.
Trends for these parameters appear to indicate significant
increases over time or these parameters have displayed repeated
high values in the past. Trends for these parameters are not easy
to review in the context of a single year's data. In addition, the
Division would like Peabody to consider the use of graphs to
display this data as graphs are easier to use to interpret trends
in the data.