Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. David Berry <br />.dage <br />Page 5 <br />Spring E did not discharge at the threshold rate which triggers further <br />monitoring. <br />h1LRD COMMENT: <br />Surface Water <br />1. The data indicate that although several of the sites were frozen, <br />precluding a valid discharge measurement, field parameters were <br />measured. We assume that ttie surface ice can be penetrated to obtain a <br />sample. Is this correct or have we misinterpreted the printout? <br />Please explain. <br />CYVCC RESPONSE: <br />The data presented in the printout is not part of the required monitoring <br />program. The data is associated with some additional work CYCC was <br />conducting during the period. Please note that CYCC is required to do the <br />surface monitoring during the period of March through September. <br />h1LR~D iCOMt•iENT: <br />2~-"'Please explain the difference between surface sites 8 and 2005. All <br />discharge measurements and water quality samples for a particular <br />monitoring occurrence must be collected at the same time and location. <br />CYVCC RESPONSE: <br />This question has been addressed in the 1987 AHR response. <br />MLRD COMh!ENT: <br />3~Site 8/2005 (Foidel Lreek) was apparently frozen during March 1988 and <br />a full suite water quality sample was not cbtained; however, field <br />parameters were measured. The approved monitoring plan is flexible for <br />this site and it allows sample collection in April instead of March. <br />We assume that the April sampling occurred. If not, please notify us <br />to discuss a remedial plan to avoid a sampling shortaee at the end of <br />the year. This recommendation also applies to Sites 16 and 1002 (Fish <br />Creek). <br />CYVCC RESPONSE: <br />The required samples for the above sites were obtained during April. <br />