My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-03-22_REPORT - C1980005 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Coal
>
C1980005
>
2010-03-22_REPORT - C1980005 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:02:21 PM
Creation date
3/29/2010 3:17:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
REPORT
Doc Date
3/22/2010
Doc Name
2009 Annual Hydrology Report
From
Seneca Coal Company
To
DRMS
Annual Report Year
2009
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
Email Name
DTM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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).
View images
View plain text
- Spoil Springs 6, 6A, 10 and 10A. These springs exist in the Wolf <br />Creek coal spoils. Spoil Spring 6 exists along the northwest edge of <br />the Wolf Creek pit and exhibits a stable EC trend. Spoil Spring 6A is <br />sampled at the haul road culvert below Spoil Spring 6. It was sampled <br />for the first time ever in 2008. Same day samples at both springs <br />indicate an increase in flow (2.2 to 12.7 gpm) and a decrease in TDS <br />(2620 to 1640 mg/1) between 6 and 6A. <br />Spoil Spring 10 was discovered in 1993. It exists along the southwest <br />edge of the spoils in the vicinity of the Wolf Creek pit underdrain, and <br />is normally sampled at the haul road culvert. It displays a stable EC <br />trend. Spoil Spring 10A is located 1200 feet above Spoil Spring 10 and <br />is at the toe of the Wolf Creek pit underdrain. It displays a decreasing <br />EC trend (SF = 0.5). Same day samples at both springs indicate a <br />decrease in TDS (3930 to 3730 mg/1) between 10A and 10. <br />- Spoil Spring 9. This spring is located in the area immediately <br />upstream of the 008 pond. It exhibits a slightly increasing EC trend. <br />Comparison of Surface Water Quality to Water Use Standards. SCC has <br />compiled a list of surface water standards for agricultural uses (Table <br />11). This list is composed of CDPHE surface water agricultural use <br />standards (CDPHE, Reg.31, October 2009). <br />Table 12 provides a comparison of all surface water quality data this <br />year to agricultural standards. This Paradox database generated table <br />does not include the units of concentration (mg/l or ug/1) for each <br />parameter. The units used for each parameter are the same as those <br />listed on the standards table (Table 11) and are also the same as those <br />used in the water quality reports. The frequency column on Table 10 <br />indicates the number of exceedences out of the total number of samples <br />(i.e., 1/2 indicates one exceedence out of two samples). Below is a <br />summary of standards that were exceeded. Given in parenthesis is the <br />source and use of each standard. Although the CDPHE does not indicate <br />between livestock and irrigation uses in their surface water <br />agricultural standards, they have done so in their similar ground water <br />18
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.