My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-02-21_REPORT - C2009087
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Coal
>
C2009087
>
2013-02-21_REPORT - C2009087
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:13:24 PM
Creation date
2/22/2013 8:48:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2009087
IBM Index Class Name
REPORT
Doc Date
2/21/2013
Doc Name
2012 Annual Hydrology Report (Emailed)
From
Peabody Sage Creek Mining, LLC
To
DRMS
Annual Report Year
2012
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
Email Name
JDM
DIH
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
257
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
Sump in the fall of 2011. Its TDS plot of previous data displayed a <br />decreasing TDS trend (SF = 0.5). <br />- Spoil Springs 6 and 10. These springs exist in the Wolf Creek coal <br />spoils. Spoil Spring 6 exists along the northwest edge of the Wolf Creek <br />pit and exhibits a decreasing TDS trend. Spoil Spring 6A monitors the <br />same drainage downstream where it meets the haul road. Monitoring at 6A <br />is not a PSCM requirement. This site was not checked this year, but no <br />flow was likely at the time when Spoil Spring 6 was checked. <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 slightly <br />increasing TDS trend; however, the peak TDS value occurred in May 2006. <br />Comparison <br />compiled a <br />10). This <br />standards <br />of Surface Water Quality to Water Use Standards. PSCM has <br />list of surface water standards for agricultural uses (Table <br />list is composed of CDPHE surface water agricultural use <br />( CDPHE, Reg.31, November 2009). <br />Table 11 provides a comparison of all surface water quality data <br />(including spoil springs) this year to agricultural standards. This <br />Paradox database generated table does not include the units of <br />concentration (mg /1 or ug /l) for each parameter. The units used for each <br />parameter are the same as those listed on the standards table (Table 10) <br />and are also the same as those used in the water quality reports. The <br />frequency column on Table 11 indicates, in this order: uncensored, that <br />is, the number of exceedances above the Method Detection Limit (MDL) / <br />the'number of exceedances between the MDL and the Practical Quantitation <br />Level (PQL) / censored, that is, the number of sample values below the <br />MDL but the MDL was higher than the standard / the total number of <br />samples. Below is a summary of standards that were exceeded. Given in <br />parenthesis is the source and use of each standard. Although the CDPHE <br />does not indicate between livestock and irrigation uses in their surface <br />water agricultural standards, they have done so in their similar ground <br />water agricultural standards (see Table 5). For the sake of discussion, <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.