Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.,. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />001736 <br /> <br />16 June 1980 <br /> <br />MEMORANDlJH <br /> <br />From: <br />To: <br /> <br />Dr. William M. Lewis, Jr. <br />The City of Louisville <br /> <br />". <br /> <br />Subject: Stream Classifications <br /> <br />This memorandum and the materials attached to it <br />constitute my response to the request for information from <br />Rocky Mountain Consultants Incorporated dated 3 June 1980. My <br />objective here is to provide you with my opinions and <br />evaluations of the water quality and biota of Coal Creek with <br />particular reference to the impact of the sewage effluent from <br />the City of Louisville on Coal Creek under the existing <br />conditions and under the assumption of possible improvement <br />in the effluent quality. I am relying for my opinions on the <br />following: (1) study of the 12 items of reference material <br />supplied to me by Rocky Mountain Consultants, including <br />existing information on water quality, treatment plant <br />specifications, stream classification, and biotic sampling in <br />the vicinity of Louisville; (2) study of the STORET computer <br />dump requested on your authority 3 June 1980; (3) examination <br />of the state use classifications supplied by you; (4) <br />examination of supplementary ammonia data from samples taken 10 <br />June 1980 (see Attachment 1); (5) examination of supplementary <br />information on fish composition taken by electroshocking on 11 <br />June 1980 (see Attachment 2); (6) review at the CD Boulder <br />library of the recent published literature on ammonia toxicity; <br />(7) my discussion with Attorney Harrison, Mr. Hobbs, and Mr. <br />Wurl on 9 June 1980. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Comments on the Quality and Scope of Available Information <br />Relevant to the Stream Classification Problem. The information <br />supplied to me was well organized, of apparently good quality, <br />and relevant to the stream classification problem. The scope <br />and detail of the available informat ion is not ideal, however, <br />and I feel that I should indicate where the main deficiencies <br />are so that my main conclusions can be judged accordingly. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The water chemistry data, specifically on ammonia and pH, <br />would be much improved if we had more information on the <br />chemistry of the Louisville effluent (weekly over 1-2 years) <br />and the chemistry of Coal Creek above Louisville (weekly over <br />1-2 years). The informat ion from the State is apparent ly <br />limited entirely to points below Louisville and to points on <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />