Laserfiche WebLink
October 29, 1992 <br />Pege 8 <br />DOMG Concern <br />2) The first visits to sites 69 and 301 were in July rather than in <br />April or May. Please explain. <br />TCC Response <br />Review of the submittal shows a reported first visit of June 28, <br />and a total of 4 monitoring instances with samples collected. This <br />schedule is fully in compliance with the monitoring plan, which <br />only requires monitoring and sample collection during irrigation <br />season (previously established as June - September). <br />DOMG Concern <br />3) Sites 304 and 307 had only 6 level readings rather than 12. <br />TCC Response <br />These sites are set up to correlate with the adjacent alluvial <br />wells, and as such are not subject to a flexible schedule as are <br />the surface sites. This results in fewer than 12 readings being <br />taken in a year due to the presence of ice cover on the stream for <br />a portion of the year. <br />DOMG Concern <br />4) The text states that site 7 did not discharge, yet the data <br />clearly shows 0.55 cfs on 9/13/91. Also, this site is required to <br />be visited monthly during runoff period but apparently was not. <br />TCC Response <br />The text is in error as pointed out by the Division. Impacts <br />associated with the flow were negligible as evidenced by review of <br />the Site 84 data during that time period. The site was in fact <br />visited bi-weekly during runoff to insure compliance with the <br />sampling requirements, but no flow was observed during that period. <br />This information was mistakenly entered under an inactive site <br />identification, and as such was not reported. This will be <br />corrected in the 1992 AHR generation. <br />