Laserfiche WebLink
4.5 gpm. Spoil Spring #3 (SS #3) in the highwall was covered with backfill material when the <br />old Peabody highwall was reclaimed in 1992. During 2001, SS #1 was again monitored (part of <br />close out monitoring for old Peabody permit area) and the data from this monitoring is included <br />in the Appendix 2.04.7-2. While water quality was similar at SS #1 from 1987 to 2001, the flow <br />rate appears to have increased 3 to 4 fold. The only explanation for this is that the surface owner <br />has been irrigating (running water over the old highwall reclaimed and backfilled slope) since <br />1992 to enhance grazing opportunities. <br />The springs in the toe area of the old Peabody backfill have a calcium magnesium sulfate type <br />water quality with average TDS of around 3650 mg/1 and a pH of about 7.0 that varies little from <br />irrigation season to non -irrigation season. This water quality is better than that of the coal zone <br />and probably reflects a blend of waters from the overburden, coal and underburden zones. In <br />contrast, the spring in the high -wall, although being of a similar calcium magnesium sulfate type <br />had a TDS of about 1660 mg/1 and an average pH of about 7.5. <br />Irrigation run off produces areas of wetlands in low spots in the NHN permit area that dry out <br />during the winter months. While these areas appear to be seeps they are totally dependent on <br />ditch irrigation and would not exist without it. SS #1 and SS #2 are currently monitored and SS <br />#3 monitoring has been abandoned. There are no naturally occurring springs within the New <br />Horizon North permit boundary. <br />Present Groundwater Use Records of the State Engineers Office of the Division of Water <br />Resources of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources were reviewed to determine the <br />number and location of water wells that have been constructed (drilled) within a one (1) mile <br />radius of the NHN permit boundary. Thirty three (33) wells were identified and are located as <br />shown on Map 2.04.7-8. Table 2.04.7-4 is a list of these wells showing the permit numbers, <br />locations, depth, yield, static water level, well owner or applicant and the suspected aquifer zone <br />in which each well has been completed. Three of these wells are water monitoring wells that <br />were constructed by Peabody (in the Dakota Formation) and transferred (through the State <br />Engineers Office) to Montrose County for their landfill. Some of the well locations reflect permit <br />applications and are not necessarily constructed wells as some of the "well construction reports" <br />were not available. Wells without construction details are identified on Table 2.04.7-4 as they are <br />missing depth, yield and static water level information. Some of the well information reviewed <br />listed the formation or aquifer the wells were completed in while some did not. Table 2.04.7-4 <br />reports actual data where it could be found. None of the wells within a one mile radius of the <br />NHN permit boundary draws its water from the Dakota Formation, LDx overburden, coal, or <br />underburden zones. The most prolific aquifer in the area is the Brushy Basin Member of the <br />underlying Morrison Formation, which is the uppermost sandstone of that formation. The Brushy <br />Basin Member is well isolated from the LDx overburden, coal and underburden zones by tight <br />siltstone and shale of the lower Dakota Formation and mudstone of the Burro Canyon Formation. <br />Section 2.04.7 Page 12 March 2018 (TR -16) <br />