My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00145
CWCB
>
Publications
>
DayForward
>
PUB00145
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 11:17:24 AM
Creation date
9/6/2007 2:29:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2007
Title
Western States Water Council - Sioux Falls, SD., May 2-4, 2007
CWCB Section
Administration
Description
Western States Water Council - Sioux Falls, SD., May 2-4, 2007
Publications - Doc Type
Water Policy
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
595
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />II <br />. <br /> <br />II <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Western States Water Council <br />Water Quality Committee <br /> <br />Sheridan, Wyoming <br />October 5,2006 <br /> <br />John utilized a powerpoint presentation. When people talk about the Powder River Basin, <br />keep in mind that it is more a term of art rather than a term of geography. There are several <br />drainages involved. Sheridan is in the Tongue River drainage. The Tongue River is a high quality <br />mountain stream flowing out of the Big Horn Mountains. It is a very good quality stream. It is, in <br />fact, a blue ribbon trout stream at its headwaters. It is a much different stream than the Powder <br />River. The Powder River mostly drains plains country. It is very arid and it's quite flashy, so it can <br />be very muddy. The quality of the Powder River is quite different than that of the Tongue River. <br /> <br />About one thousand individual discharge permits for coal bed methane (CBM) have been <br />permitted in Wyoming. Each permit has about 10, outfalls. Companies tend to over permit. They <br />will permit a site for ten outfalls, and they may only build three outfalls. If they get more water than <br />they expected, they may build a couple more. If they get less water, then three outfalls may be <br />sufficient Thus, it is a slightly misleading picture. Each permit is looked at rather closely. The vast <br />majority of the discharges permitted are discharges to either onstream reservoirs, the equivalent of <br />stock ponds, or off channel reservoirs. The permits are based on the downstream uses. The NPDES <br />program has grown significantly since the late 1990s. There are six people on staff just to permit <br />CBM. Another 6-8 staff go out and monitor. There are approximately 1800 total permits in <br />Wyoming, and about 1000 are for CBM. Of the 1800, about 500 are conventional water and gas <br />permits. All of these are subject to stormwater control. <br /> <br />Of the entire area of discharges, there is about 100 cfs of water. It is spread out, and much is <br />not going directly down drainages. Much of the water goes into the various reservoirs. Water is <br />disposed of by putting it in in-channel reservoirs. Secondly, is off-channel reservoirs, and then direct <br />discharge. Only about 2% of the total is injected. A very small percentage is subsurface irrigation. <br />Off-chamlel ponds must be out of the natural drainage and cannot get anything into them except that <br />which falls directly from the sky. They may be lined or unlined depending on the groundwater <br />situation. On-channel are basically like stock ponds. It is all very site specific. <br /> <br />There is a large seam of shallow coal extending for about 100 miles outside Gillette, <br />Wyoming. The coal generally dips to the west at about one degree. The coal that is deeper is not <br />economical to get into. <br /> <br />Montana has developed numeric standards for the two parameters of concern with the CBM, <br />(1) salinity and (2) sodium absorption ratio. Wyoming only has a narrative standard, which states <br />that the water quality cannot be of such quality that there will be a significant decrease in agricultural <br />production. In some ways we believe that is a better approach than a straight numeric standard <br />because you can adapt the effluent limits to the individual situation. You may have a situation where <br />the soil is very compact, or really loose and you're going to have a different number. The problem is <br />that you'rl~ fighting battles every time. In some cases, they are going to be more restrictive, or in <br />some caSt:s less restrictive. We're doing it in a very labor intensive way. Two main concepts: (1) <br />our relationship with Montana and how that is affecting us; and (2) our local situation within <br />Wyoming. <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.