Laserfiche WebLink
spring and apparently issues from prelaw area spoils to the south. On May 20, 1991, no • <br />floe was noted at the map location, but approximately 600 feet downstream in the same <br />ditch that Spoils Spring #8 discharges, a floe of 0.94 gpm was noted with a EC 25°C of <br />2,480 umho/cm, and a pN of 7.80. <br />Spoil Spring #b. This spring is the only one yet observed in the Wolf Creek spoils and <br />was located in 7986. On May 22, 1991, it had a flow of 1.8 gpm, an EC 25°C of 2,880 <br />umhos/cm, and a pH of 6.84. <br />Spoils Spring #9. This spring was located during 1990 in the area immediately upstream of <br />the 008 pond. This sample site is the composite of several seeps that issue from spoils <br />material. On May 9, 1991, it had a floe of 55.7 gpm, an EC 25°C of 2,320 umhos/cm, and a <br />pH of 7.49. <br />Stock Tanks. Thirteen stock tanks were constructed in 1990. Locations of these stock <br />tanks are given on Exhibit 7-7, Surface Water Hydrology Map, in the Seneca II Permit <br />Application Package. Technical Revision 21 (approved spring, 1991) committed to <br />monitoring the hydrological impacts of these tanks. Monitoring consisted of 1) water . <br />quality analysis (using the parameter list given on Table 14, Appendix A) on a monthly <br />basis from June through September of selected stock tanks (T2, T5, T7, T12, and T25); 2) <br />measure the amount of water (by the use of staff gages) in each stock tank; 3) document <br />usage by wildlife (by means of noting any animal tracks); and 4) monthly monitoring from <br />May through September for pH, total dissolved solids, and sulfate, and bimonthly (May, <br />June, and September) for the parameter list given on Table 14, Appendix A) of selected <br />downgradient spoils springs (1, 3, and 4). water quality analyses for these sites may be <br />found in Appendix E. Technical Revision 21 states that a complete analysis of all data <br />will be made after the September, 1992 monitoring (i.e., after two years worth of data). <br />Therefore, no data interpretation will be included in this AHR. <br />Comoarison of Surface Water Oualitv to Water Use Standards. The CDOH has established <br /> <br />water quality standards for most stream segments in the state, including the Yampa River <br />and select tributaries (CDOH, 1986). Surface w ater in the Grassy Creek Basin is <br />categorized under Segment 12 of the Y ampa River, and this segment has only minimal <br />standards established (dissolved oxygen, pH, and fecal col iforms only). Surface eater in <br />the Fish Creek Basin (Cow Camp and Bond Creeks) is categorized under Segment 13. Since <br /> <br />Segment 12 has no standards established for major ions or trace metals, the standards <br />20 <br />