Laserfiche WebLink
S <br />7 <br />-2- <br />7. It is noted that, as mentioned in the text, surface water upstream is of <br />the calcium bicarbonate type, however, the date indicates that in the early <br />spring the upstream surface water is of a sodium sulfate type. Is this a <br />result of runoff from reclaimed areas of Energy No. 2 above the upstream <br />site? See also comment 10 below. <br />8. Page 2.04-24 indicates that data for Gaging Station 1003 is contained in <br />Table 28, Surface Water Monitoring Data. No such data was found in Table 28. <br />9. Figure 7, Stream Flow Hydrographs, contains data for fish Creek only, not <br />t}iree streams ~s referenced on page 2.04-24. <br />10. No discussion is contained in Seasonal Variations in Water quality, pages <br />2.04-25 and 26, of t}ie change in water quality observed upstream on Fish <br />Creek. See comment 7 above. <br />ll. The Trilinear Diagram for Surface Water, Figure 9 shows water of a mixed <br />type, calcium-sodium sulfate not calcium bicarbonate. Please clarify. If <br />this is correct, then the surface water quality is not all that similar to the <br />ground water quality as stated on page 2.04-22. <br />12. Site 15 is found in Tables 28 and 29 and yet not mentioned in TAble 34 as <br />being part of the monitoring schedule. Please clarify. <br />13. The only water quality data presented in Table 30, Ground Water Quality <br />Data, is for Well No. AU-3. At the very least historical water quality for <br />Well No. 008-AW-3 should be submitted. <br />14. It is not clear from the permit application whether or not surface water <br />flow will be monitored at all sites or just at Gaging Station 1003. At <br />minimum a flow measurement should be taken when water quality samples are <br />taken. <br />15. No historic data was presented for site 1003 in the permit application. <br />This data should be presented. Downstream water quality is discussed several <br />times in the text. Where were the samples collected? <br />Alternative Water Supply Information <br />1. There appears to be some information missing from the third sentence of <br />this response. <br />Haul Roads <br />The following items have been identified as problems. Any changes that are <br />needed must be incorporated into the permit application. <br />1. No culvert designs were presented with the permit application. <br />2. While the two culverts conveying flows from Middle Creek each separately <br />have end areas less than 35 square feet, the total end area is greater than 35 <br />square feet. Have these culverts been designed to handle the 20 year - 24 <br />hour storm flows? The designs must be presented in the permit application. <br />