Laserfiche WebLink
s } <br />cobalt, lithium and vanadium are not available for PECOCO; however, Peabody conducted <br />beryllium, cobalt, lithium and vanadium analyses on ground water samples from five Seneca <br />II wells (including spoils well GW-527) in 1987 and found that, in all cases, <br />concentrations for these elements were less than agricultural standard maximum <br />concentrations (see 1988 Water Year Seneca II Mine Annual Hydrology Report). In <br />conclusion, the water quality of PECOCO is acceptable for livestock /wildlife use, and <br />discharges from the impoundment will not degrade downstream water quality. <br />Water level and discharge measurements -.have been conducted at PECOCO since June 15, 1.988 <br />(Table 7- 6G -1c). Water levels were determined using a stake with a surveyed reference <br />level, and discharge was measured using a container of known volume and a stop watch. <br />Water level elevations ranged from 6774..27 ft. to 6774.61 ft. for the period of record, <br />which is a 0.34 ft. change in water level. Using the design storage capacity data for <br />PECOCO (Table 7- 6C -1d) and a multiplicative regression model, a '0.34 ft. change in water <br />level represents a change in storage volume of less than 1.0 ac. -ft. (only 4 percent of <br />the available volume). Therefore, the water level of PECOCO is quite stable and will <br />• . support livestock /wildlife use. <br />PECOCO discharges into Little Grassy Creek, a tributary of Grassy Creek. Two irrigation <br />water rights are on record for Grassy Creek: Nofstger Ditch . (appropriated May 27, 1908; <br />adjudicated July 24, 1939) and Cook Ditch (appropriated September 1, 1901; adjudicated <br />Ceptember 19, 1904). PECOCO will not affect the quality or quantity of water available to <br />these water right holders because: <br />1. discharges from the impoundment meet agricultural quality standards, <br />2. the diversion points for both water rights are above the confluence of Little <br />Grassy Creek with Grassy Creek, and <br />3. both water rights have been inactive (i.e., no beneficial use) for at least 20 <br />years (Tom Williamson, personal communication, 1989). <br />In summary, hydrologic criteria for the authorization rf Permanent impourdm.ents under <br />Section 4.05.9 are met at PECOCO. Peabody will continue to rronitor v+ater ! ?ve ;end water <br />i « orin -fie `en PCa <br />quality at PECOCO in conjunction +vith routin _ h;�drologic mon g +r <br />`o further Substantiate the conclusions stated above. <br />• <br />