Laserfiche WebLink
RN07 <br />Page 20 <br />5/30/18 <br /> <br />A key consideration in any water quality analysis for this area is that ambient levels of the indicator parameters are <br />relatively high due to natural geologic factors, and for the sub-watersheds noted (Lower Middle, Fish, and Trout <br />creeks) runoff contributions from previous surface mining operations in the area are an important factor (not <br />specifically addressed in the water quality modeling effort and report). In the “Summary and Conclusions” section <br />(Exhibit 32, pgs 39 – 43) of the report, however, it is noteworthy that the report states; “Those anticipated dissolved- <br />solids loads are barely discernible relative to average ambient conditions in Trout Creek (about 70 tons/day) or the <br />Yampa River (about 250 tons/day).” <br /> <br />For reference, the following summarizes the results of the referenced modeling effort (Exhibit 32, Table 10), and <br />includes average values from TC’s ongoing hydrologic monitoring program for the period 2009 – 2015 (all <br />monitoring data through the present is presented in TC’s Annual Hydrology Reports). <br /> <br />Drainage/Parameter Modeling Results Calibration <br />(Baseline) <br />Predicted Values <br />(8-Yr Intervals) <br />Av. Values <br />2009-2015 <br />Monitoring <br />Ambient Predicted <br />Lower Middle Creek <br /> EC 760 771 1,048 1,220/950/948/934 1,700 <br /> TDS 888 898 864 1,056/812/810/797 1,120 <br /> Sulfate 406 388 372 570/377/375/366 645 <br /> <br />Lower Fish Creek <br /> EC 491 491 460 456/488/457/409 870 <br /> TDS 441 441 430 443/471/444/402 645 <br /> Sulfate 172 172 150 176/196/177/148 277 <br /> <br />Lower Trout Creek <br /> EC 381 381 ND 367/359/348/322 640 <br /> TDS 396 397 ND 345/338/328/314 429 <br /> Sulfate 159 159 ND 144/139/133/123 217 <br /> <br />Yampa River <br /> EC 265 265 240 241/240/238/236 ND <br /> TDS 156 156 169 166/166/164/162 ND <br /> Sulfate 34 34 38 39/38/37/36 ND <br /> <br /> <br />Notes: <br />Lower Middle Creek is subject to water quality influences from previous surface mining operations (Eckman Park <br />Mines Mine No. 1, and Mine No. 3), irrigation and grazing, and recent residential development <br />Lower Fish Creek is subject to water quality influences from previous surface mining o perations (Mine No. 2, the <br />Seneca Mine, and the Mine No. 3 Tipple), and irrigation and grazing <br />Lower Trout Creek is subject to water quality influences from all of the above, plus the Edna Mine <br />ND – No baseline data was available for Lower Trout Creek, and TC does not monitor the Yampa River <br /> <br /> <br />In evaluating the values presented in the table above, the monitoring values should be compared with applicable <br />water quality standards for the relevant water uses, which are limited to livestock use (TDS of 7,000 mg /l) and <br />irrigation (EC of 250-750 µmhos is considered “good” and 750-2,000 µmhos is considered “permissible”). Sulfate <br />is a Secondary Drinking Water Standard (aesthetic – smell) at 250 mg/l which is only applicable to one downstream