Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Mr. Rick Mills - 2 - November 3D, 1989 <br />each month, during March and May, the intent of the monitoring plan <br />is to quantify the approximate peak flow period. This often occurs <br />in April. Please explain the reason for missing the April <br />measurement, and please verify that monthly sampling will occur <br />during future Spring runoff periods. <br />2. As discussed for Spring A2 above, the Spring C-1 was not sampled <br />during April, 1988. We acknowledge that additional samples were <br />taken at other times; however, the April measurement is considered <br />to be very important. Please explain the omission. <br />3. The comments at number 3 above also apply to Spring D. <br />4. Were Springs B-3, F, H, I, 0 EP-87-1, EP-87-2, R, and M2-87-1 dry <br />during May, 1988? If not, why were they not sampled? <br />5. Please locate Spring 1861100 on the spoil spring map, and add it to <br />Table 1 of the Annual Hydrology Report. <br />6. Be sure to include the springs located below Area 60 (61) during <br />the next survey. <br />Surface Water <br />1. One of the weekly August field samples was missed for Site 16. <br />Please explain this omission. <br />2. The monitoring plan requires a monthly stream level measurement at <br />each of the Fish Creek alluvial well sites during the irrigation <br />season. Water level elevations should be recorded at alluvial well <br />Sites 006-AW-2, 006-AY-1 and 006-AZ-3. It seems that level is <br />recorded only at surface Site 307 (Well Site 006-AZ -3 ). Please <br />explain the lack of monitoring information. <br />3. Please submit a minor revision which incorporates the water level <br />measurement sites into Table 101 of the permit document. <br />4. Fish Creek Site 307 was not monitored during July and August, <br />1988. Why were these measurements missed? <br />5. The field parameter measurements were missed for Site 800 during <br />September; however, extra samples were taken in October and April. <br />6. Why is selenium analyzed for total selenium rather than total <br />recoverable selenium for Sites 700, 800 and 900? <br />7. Has CYCC developed a reliable rating curve for Site 8? How often <br />is the channel cross section checked to verify curve reliability? <br />This issue also applies to the other monitoring stations where <br />rating curves are used. <br />