Laserfiche WebLink
- wedge Uaderburdea. well Y[4U28 moaitora uaderburden water Quality is the • <br />Aaaaad Draw basin. It displays a decreasing TDS trend. wells YW029 and 30 <br />exist is the Sage Creek basin. Well 29 has recently displayed a slightly <br />iacreaeiag TDS trend. well 30 8ieplaye a decreasing TDS trend. <br />- Wolf Creak Coal and Uaderburdea. Well YWC31 monitors the Wolf Creek coal <br />water quality is the Sage Creek basin. This well displays an iacreaeiag TDS <br />treafl, eves though ao mining of this seam has occurred. Well yWCU31 monitors <br />the Wolf Creak uaderburden water quality is the Sage Creek basin. This well ie <br />normally dry. <br />Comparison of Ground water Quality to Water Dee Standards. SCC has comDileB a <br />list of ground water etaadarde for agricultural uses (Table 5). This list is <br />eomDOeed mostly of Colorado Department of Health (CDOH) ground water standards <br />ae o£ Dlarch 1999, although other agency etaadarde have been used if the CDOH has <br />no agricultural standard for a particular parameter. Table 5 has footnotes to <br />indicate the source of each water quality standard. <br />Tnbla 6 Drovidea a comparison of ground water quality to agricultural etaadarde. • <br />This Paradox database generated table does not include the unite of <br />concentration (mg/1 or ug/1) for each parameter. The unite used for each <br />parameter are the same ae those listed oa the etaadarde table (Table 5) and are <br />oleo the same as those used is the water quality reports. The frequency column <br />oa Table 6 iadieatee the number of exceedeaeae out of the total number of <br />samples (i.e., 1/2 iadieatee one excaedeace out of two samples). Below is e <br />summary of etaadarde that were exceeded. Given is Dareatheais is the source and <br />use of each standard. <br />anrnmeter Number of Wells <br />iron (CDOH, irrigation) 1 <br />mangeaeae (CDOH, irrigation) 3 <br />dissolved solids (USEP/1, irrigation) 6 <br />sulfate (California, irrigation) 13 <br />Ia addition, two eamplea £rom the same well had cadmium values that were lase • <br />than an elavatefl detection limit (20 ug/1 ve. a normal detection limit of 3 <br />6 <br />