Correspondence Received
Commenting On The Source Water Assessment And Protection Draft Document
From: Larry Martin Larry_Martin@nps.gov
To: DEQ.CHEYENNE(KFREDE)
Date: 1/22/99 11:35am
Subject: draft SWAP comments
The only comment I have is that I don't think you should terminate
assessment areas at the State border. I know there are political
boundaries, but that shouldn't prevent the PWS operator from
identifying the contributing area or potential contaminant sources in
the adjacent state.
I certainly like this document more than Utah's. I've done a couple
of WHPA's for small parks in Utah this year and have found that Utah
micro-manages the process to where anyone who can read and follow
their guidelines could do the WHPA report. No hydro background
necessary.
Larry
From: Mike Hackett
To: Frederick, Kevin
Date: 2/5/99 2:08pm
Subject: Draft SWAP
A couple of comments on the draft.
1). Page 1, 2nd para., 8th line - develop and plans
2). Page 9, "Public Water Supply System Types:" - There is a reference to Figure 3.1 which was not found in my draft copy.
3). Page 11, Hydrogeologic and Aquifer Vulnerability Mapping: - Using this delineates the outer boundary of the source water assessment area - but it was unclear to me how this relates to Zones 1, 2, or 3 and whether a comprehensive of limited potential contaminated source inventory is to be conducted.
4). Page 11 - Confined Aquifers - How are confined aquifers less than 100 ft. deep going to be treated? I assume that a comprehensive inventory is required but for what distance from the well?
5). Page 13 - Surface Water Assessment Approach for Rivers and Streams - Zone B Cutting off the Zone B at another intake would need to assume that the other community water system has or will in the near future conduct a source water assessment otherwise the Zone B should continue on to the 8 hour time of travel.
Mike Hackett
Chapters
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7
Glossary |
Acronyms
Appendices
A |
B |
C |
D
Wyoming's Source
Water Assessment Guidance Document Contents