Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Boulay <br />!993/94 AHR Responses <br />Page 2 <br />typically conduct those analyses (but do so now). Please find attached the laboratory analysis <br />sheet with a list of pazameters that were analyzed. <br />•Pages of Appendix D are enclosed in the event the pages provided to you did not contain Mn <br />information. Laboratory measurements for pH, Specific Conductance, and TSS for the North <br />Fork Upper and Lower stations for 04/26/93, 06/07/93, and 09/07/93 were not completed <br />because for the reason described above. Please find attached the laboratory analysis sheet with <br />a list of pazameters that were analyzed. <br />6. Baseline average daily flow at the North Fork Upper (no flow is measured at the North Fork <br />Lower) location was, apparently, not established, and has historically been discounted. The <br />1988 AHR merely reports flows "Not Monitored". The 1989 report contained a <br />comprehensive overview of baseline infom~ation. As a revision to the 1995 AHR, the historic <br />(1934 - 1995 water years) low and high average daily flows were reported (from USGS Water <br />Resources Data Colorado Water year 1995, Volume 2, USFS Water-Data Report CO-95-2) <br />for the upper station. There is no flow measurement at the lower station. Please Snd a revised <br />Table E-1 enclosed. <br />7. Please find a revised page 1 of Appendix F enclosed. Data had been entered on the wrong <br />lines. <br />8. Please find a revised Table E-2 enclosed. Spring G-1 has been changed to G-la for <br />consistency. Erroneous entries of pH for Spring G-12 and G-20 have been deleted and entered <br />on the appropriate line. <br />9. Please find a revised Table (Exhibit 12 changed to read Table A) enclosed. <br />10. The frequency of monitoring well SOM-128-H was reduced from monthly (1990 AHR, after <br />baseline data was collected) to 3 times a year (1991 AHR), and has remained at 3 times a year <br />to date. A third sample was inadvertently missed. <br />11. Well SG-1 was only sampled for methane (along with other wells on the property) on <br />04/29/93, and revisited three days later (OS/02193) and sampled. At that time, the casing had <br />been pushed over by the rising refuse pile, almost too far to obtain a sample. On 06/07/93 the <br />casing had been bent over too far to sample. On 09/07/93 the condition was found to have <br />deteriorated, and no sample could be obtained. This well has since been replaced by GB-1. <br />12. The casing of SOM-38-H-1 has apparently collapsed or has been damaged in some way. <br />Although a measuring tape can be lowered, no sampling device can reach water levels. The <br />table in Appendix H has been revised to note that the casing was pinched shut at the 6/10 <br />sampling. <br />13. No record of SW-1 sampling has been recovered for 6/9/93. No water samples could be <br />obtained from SOM-38-1 (see previous response). <br />