Laserfiche WebLink
f <br />Page 2 <br />3. In addition specific information was missing; <br />SW3A - no Feb. Bicarb, Sulfate <br />SW4 - no June TSS <br />GWA-9 - no June Bicarb <br />Response: All missing data with the exception of the SW4 June TSS <br />is attached. No TSS analysis was performed on SW4 in June. <br />4. No quality data was located for GWB-2R. <br />Response: Quality data for GWB-2R has been included as Tables 51A <br />- 51G. <br />5. No flow or quality data was located for FCS-1. <br />Response: FCS-1 did not flow during the first half of 1994. <br />stream Cross sections <br />1. The baseline elevation for surface site SW-1 (SW3A) is listed <br />as 6793.9 in the Table but the cross-section represents the <br />baseline elevation as approximately 6789.5. Why are these values <br />different. <br />Response: The ground elevation of approximately 6789.5 at SW3A was <br />used in the cross-sections while the reference elevation shown in <br />the table and used for water level calculations is the elevation of <br />the cross-arm of the surface station. <br />2. The same type of discrepancy exists for SW2 (SW4). Please <br />explain. <br />Response: Same as SW1. <br />3. Refering to cross-section A between April and June, a major <br />change in elevation is evident but this area is outside of the <br />subsided area. What is the cause of this change? <br />Response: The location of the survey points in the April and June <br />surveys were not all the same. In June no shots were taken between <br />stations 2+86 and 4+08. When the profile was plotted, the points <br />were connected by a straight line which gives the appearance of an <br />elevation change when none actually took place. An additional <br />station should have been placed on thr crest of the embankment to <br />better define the profile. <br />