My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-02-01_REPORT - C1980001 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Coal
>
C1980001
>
2013-02-01_REPORT - C1980001 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:12:38 PM
Creation date
2/1/2013 12:43:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980001
IBM Index Class Name
REPORT
Doc Date
2/1/2013
Doc Name
2012 Annual Hydrology Report
From
WWC Engineering
To
DRMS
Annual Report Year
2012
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
Email Name
RDZ
DIH
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.
/
15
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
I <br />3.0 SPRING AND SEEP SURVEY <br />A spring and seep survey is performed annually in May, or as soon as practical after snowmelt, <br />covering the base of reclaimed areas along Trout Creek. Flow is measured from springs or seeps <br />that exceeds approximately 20 gpm is measured while flow from smaller expressions is visually <br />estimated. Additionally, a sample is taken annually from springs and seeps exhibiting flows in <br />excess of 20 gpm. The complete list of parameters used for surface water monitoring sites, <br />except for TSS, is analyzed to characterize flow quality. <br />A survey was conducted April 18 and 20, 2012 to evaluate springs and seeps (Plate 2). Survey <br />locations were at the base of the ridge along Trout Creek, from the northern Moffat boundary to <br />the base of West Ridge. Fifteen spring locations were surveyed. Of these 15 spring locations, <br />six were either damp or exhibited flowing water during the 2012 survey. Twenty -one seep <br />locations were surveyed. Of these 21 seep locations, three were either damp or exhibited flowing <br />water during the 2012 survey (Table 1). <br />Four of the six springs, either damp or flowing, exhibited sufficient discharge for flow to be <br />estimated or calculated, and field parameters measured during the 2012 monitoring period. Two <br />of the three seeps either damp or flowing, exhibited sufficient discharge for flow to be estimated <br />or calculated, and field parameters measured during the 2012 monitoring period. Several of the <br />springs and seeps were sampled as single units due to their close proximity to each other and <br />their apparent common origin (Table 2). <br />Springs SPR -1, SPR -3, SPR -5 and SPR -11 and seep SE -23 had sufficient flow, singularly or in <br />combination with other springs or seeps, to require additional laboratory water quality sampling <br />in accordance with permit requirements (Table 3). <br />Idik"' V V V V CENGINEERING <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.