Laserfiche WebLink
standards table (Table 9) and are also the same as those used in the <br />water quality reports. The frequency column on Table 10 indicates the <br />number of exceedences out of the total number of samples (i.e., 1/2 <br />indicates one exceedence out of two samples). Below is a summary of <br />standards that were exceeded. Given in parenthesis is the source and use <br />of each standard. Although the CDPHE does not indicate between livestock <br />and irrigation uses in their surface water agricultural standards, they <br />have done so in their similar ground water agricultural standards (see <br />Table 5). For the sake of discussion, SCC chooses to use those ground <br />water use standards classifications (livestock or irrigation) for <br />surface water use evaluation. Of all the surface water sites downstream <br />of Seneca II-W, only Sites WSD5 (Dry Creek), WSSF3 (Sage Creek), WSH7 <br />(mid-Hubberson Gulch) and WSHF1 (lower Hubberson Gulch) have their <br />waters used for irrigation. Following is a list of standards exceeded <br />this year. <br />Parameter # of Sites / # of Excursions <br />Manganese (CDPHE irrigation) 12/16 10 <br />This summary indicates that only one CDPHE surface water agricultural <br />use standards was exceeded. The manganese standard was exceeded at <br />twelve sites. However, as indicated in the recently revised CDPHE <br />Regulation 31, the standard of 0.2 mg/1, applies to plants grown in <br />acidic (<6.0 pH) soils. In alkaline soils, as are found in the Seneca <br />II-W region, a more appropriate (EPA) standard would be 10 mg/1. The <br />maximum manganese value for any surface water site observed this year <br />was 2.35 mg/1 at Spoil Spring 1. Premining manganese values often <br />exceeded the 0.2 mg/1 standard. <br />Table 11 shows the CDPHE receiving stream standards for Dry Creek (Yampa <br />Segment 13d) and Sage Creek (Yampa Segment 13e). Sage Creek was <br />resegmented by the CDPHE in 2003. Regulation 33 was further revised in <br />December 2005 and August 2008. These standards were based on the <br />presence of fish in the lower portions of the creeks. However, the upper <br />portions that Seneca II-W discharges into have no fish present. All <br />chemical standards for 13d and 13e are the same. Table 12 provides a <br />20