Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CYCC response <br />No follow-up monitoring instances for spring M2-87 were completed after May <br />1994 until May 1995. No reason for this omission is evident after reviewing the <br />field books. <br />Current Division response <br />The Division reminds CYCC that collection and accurate reporting of hydrologic <br />data are required by the Rules. <br />Original Division question <br />The following springs were identified as flowing greater than 35 gpm in May of <br />1994; A-2, C-1, D comp, E, OVB #1. <br />* no data was provided in 1995 for OVB #1 (until May 1995). <br />CYCC response <br />The flow for spring OVB #1 in May 1994 is shown on page 2 of 2 of Table 47 in <br />the 1994 AHR as 24.2 gpm. No additional monitoring is required with flow at this <br />level until the following May. <br />Current Division response <br />Table 47 reveals that spring OVB #1 was flowing at .265 cfs which equates to 118 <br />gpm. This puts spring OVB #lwell within the range of required monitoring. <br />Apparently there is a discrepancy in the conversion done in the table. Please <br />respond accordingly. <br />Please submit responses as appropriate within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Thank you for your <br />continued cooperation. <br />Since~r~ecly~ ,~ D <br />7kT -' ~0 `~~~ <br />Kent A. Gorham <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />CC: Dan Hernandez, DMG <br />