^
*
.^ar?
^R y-tl *"v?s?£*
M- ,1 i . ^^Sa^
SVSTft*5
-------
A PILOT STUDY OF
DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS
IN THE
U.S. FOREST SERVICE SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
WATER SUPPLY DIVISION
November 1974
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The complete cooperation and assistance of the U.S. Forest Service was provided at
every step during the planning and field evaluations in this study. The help of the agency
is acknowledged with appreciation for its efforts, Special thanks must go to the Forest
Service personnel who cooperated fully with the project by accompanying us during our
field surveys, and giving freely of their time.
U
-------
CONTENTS
Water Quality .
Survefflance
Operation, Control and Protection
SCOPE OF SYSTEMS STUDIED
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Water Quality Criteiia
Facilities and Operation Criteria
Surveillance Criteria
PROCEDURES
Office Review
Field Survey
Sampling Program
Laboratory Procedures
FINDINGS
Water Quality
Bacteriological Surveillance
Chemical Surveillance
Sanitary Surveys
Operation, Control, and Protection
DISCUSSION
General
Water Quality
Bacteriological Surveillance
Chemical Surveillance
Sanitary Surveys
Operation, Control, and Protection
Surveillance Program Resource Requirements
PARTICIPANTS
APPENDICES
A. Sanitary Survey Forms Used in the Study
B. Sanitary Survey Results
C. Proposed Chemical and Bacteriological
Sampling Criteria
3
7
7
7
7
11
19
19
19
19
23
23
23
23
24
27
27
30
30
30
34
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
41
45
47
49
57.
119
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RBCOMMENDATIONS
Ill
-------
TABLES
1. Summary of Forests Included in the Study . 11
2. Summary of Water Treatment at Systems Surveyed 16
3. Criteria for Evaluating Bacteriological, Chemical,
and Physical Quality of Water Systems Studied 20
4. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards
Limits Not Met 27
5. Water Systems Surveyed Failing to Meet
Drinking Water Standards, By Source 27
6. Maximum Concentration of Physical and Chemical
Constituents Failing to Meet Limits for Systems Surveyed 30
7. Frequency Distribution of Various Chemicals that
Failed to Meet the Drinking Water Standards 31
8. Chlorination Practices and Their Effectiveness at
Water Systems Surveyed 34
9. Estimated Water Supply Program Manpower Needs
and Costs 42
FIGURES
1. Locations of Field Evaluations in California 12
2. Locations of Field Evaluations in Colorado 13
3. Locations of Field Evaluations in North Carolina
and Georgia 14
4. Types of Water Systems Studied 15
5. Number of Systems Failing to Meet Standards . . . . 28
6. Systems Failing to Meet a Constituent Limit
of the Drinking Water Standards 29
7. Comparison of Disinlection Practices and
Bacteriological Contamination at Water Systems Surveyed . 32
8. Summary of Bacteriological Monitoring at Water
Systems Studied 33
9. Summary of Sanitary Conditions at Water Systems
Studied 35
ip
-------
INTRODUCTION
II ,
U
I
r
-------
INTRODUCTION
The quality of water served to Americans in their homes has received increasing
attention in recent years. However, little notice has been given to the quality of drinking
water available to the public at recreational areas. Generally, these are very small water
supplies which receive little surveillance or maintenance. These supplies have great
potential for spreading waterborne diseases since they serve large numbers of people.
The significance of this becomes readily apparent when it is realized that
approximately 71 million visitor-days per year are spent at the fully developed areas of
the U.S. Forest Service alone. If recreational activities such as hiking and fishing in lesser
developed areas are included, the visitation increases to 188 miffion visitor-days per year.
In view of these important public health considerations, the U.S. Forest Service
cooperated with the Water Supply Division of the Environmental Protection Agency to
conduct a pilot study of 119 water systems in nine National Forests. These forests
experience more than 8.9 million visitor-days per year.
the purpose of this study was to assess the construction, water quality, operation,
maintenance and surveillance of water supplies on U.S. Forest Service lands, and to
propose any recommendations necessaiy for the U.S. Forest Service to maintain an
effective water supply program; thus assuring the visitors to National Forests safe
drinking water.
3
-------
SUMMARY OF
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. p..
p.
.. . • t1
u
I
-------
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study included 119 drinking water supply
systems in nine National Forests. The field work,
completed in July, August and September of 1973, was
divided between California in the far West, Colorado in
the Rocky Mountains, and North Carolina and Georgia
in the South. At each water system a sanitary survey was
conducted; water samples from the distribution system
were collected for bacteriological, chemical, and physical
analyses; chlorine residuals were measured, and the
distribution system pressure was determined.
The specific findings and recommendations of the
study are:
Water Quality
1. Sixty-four (54 percent) of the 119 drinking
water systems did not comply with the constituent
limits of the U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards. Thirty-six systems (30 percent) failed at least
one mandatory chemical or bacteriological limit and 40
(34 percent) did not comply with at least one recom-
mended limit. The presence of substances failing a
mandatory limit constitutes grounds for the rejection of
the supply; therefore, their continued presence should
be carefully monitored and evaluated by appropriate
health authorities and a decision made regarding cor-
rective measures or discontinuing use of the supply.
2. Bacteriological analysis of samples collected
from the distribution system during the survey showed
that 17 (18 percent) of the systems using ground water
and seven (27 percent) of the systems using surface
water were contaminated. Where contamination was
found, the Forest Service was notified immediately. To
prevent bacteriological contamination of the source,
improved source protection and attention to the sanitary
conditions of the water systems are necessary. Dis-
infection should be a mandatory requirement for all
systems using surface water. Since high turbidity can
impede the disinfection process, other treatment should
be employed as necessary to ensure that the turbidity
level meets the limit established in the Drinking Water
Standards. Disinfection should be a mandatory require-
ment for all drinking water systems using ground water
unless a history of satisfactory bacteriological quality
and sanitary surveys is developed.
Surveillance
3. Records of the bacteriological surveillance for
the 12 months preceding the study were investigated for
each water system. The results of this investigation show
that only 4 (3 percent) of the water systems surveyed
had an acceptable bacteriological surveillance program.
No samples were taken during three or more months at
66 (55 percent) of the water systems. An examination of
the bacteriological quality for the 12 months prior to
the field visit revealed that 42 (35 percent) of the
systems failed the Drinking Water Standards for one or
more months. A bacteriological sampling program that
will meet the minimum requirements of the Drinking
Water Standards should be required at each system. This
program should be continued at all times the system is
operational. All samples should be analyzed at a labora-
tory certified by a State or an EPA approved certifying
officer.
4. There was no chemical analysis on record for
110 (92 percent) of the water systems studied. None of
the chemical analyses performed included all of the
constituents in the Drinking Water Standards. The water
from all drinking water systems should be tested for all
chemical constituents listed in the Drinking Water
Standards before the water is made available to the
public. Additional chemical analyses should be made at
the minimum of once every three years for systems
supplied by ground water or more often when there is
reason to believe the chemical quality may be deteriorat-
ing. Water systems supplied by surface water should
receive a chemical analysis on a yearly basis. The results
of all chemical sampling should be forwarded to one
office in each Forest Service Region so that trends in
chemical quality and frequency of surveillance may be
reviewed on a continuing basis.
5. Sanitary surveys are necessary to identify and
correct sanitary deficiencies in water systems. One
hundred fourteen (96 percent) systems in this study
were found not to have had records of a sanitary
survey. Yearly sanitary surveys of and continuing
attention to each water system should be provided. For
water systems that are not operated during the winter
months, the sanitary surveys should be performed when
the system is placed in operation in the spring. No water
system should be placed in operation until satisfactory
bacteriological quality has been obtained.
Operation, Control, and Protection
6. Fifty-four (45 percent) of the water systems
studied did not have adequate source protection. The
source protection of a water system is vital to the
maintenance of a safe water supply. More attention
should be given to proper source protection in well and
spring construction and surface water intakes.
7. The adequacy of the operation and control was
determined at all water systems. Forty-two (35 percent)
of the water systems were judged not to have adequate
operation and control. Treatment equipment and/or
chlorine residuals were not checked daily at these
systems. The study shows that while personnel are
7
-------
available for water system maintenance, many of the
individuals responsible for the water systems do not have
a full knowledge of what they should be doing and the
reasoning behind these duties. The U.S. Forest Service
should assure that all persons responsible for the
operation of a water system in the National Forests are
adequately trained.
8. An adequate level of chlorine was not found in
all parts of the distribution system at 26 (72 percent) of
the systems wher&chlorination equipment was operated.
This includes 22 (61 percent) systems where no chlorine
residual was detected. Daily inspection of the chlorine
feed equipment and daily records of the chlorine
residuals should be maintained. Chlorine residuals should
be present at the ends of the distribution system.
9. The ability of each water system to deliver a
continuous supply of safe drinking water was investi-
gated. Fifty-nine (50 percent) of the systems needed
major improvements such as a change in source, treat-
ment equipment, distribution system, and/or storage
facilities. Improvements should be made where necessary
to help assure safe water at all times.
10. The results of this study show the need for
improving the surveillance procedures. One office within
each Forest Service Regional Office should be respon-
sible for approving all water system designs and plans,
monitoring the bacteriological and chemical surveillance
of all systems, and providing sanitary surveys and
technical assistance for all water systems. This office
should have the authority to prohibit the use of water
from any water system not meeting accepted standards.
The cost of an adequate surveillance program, which
would typically include a che?nical analysis of the water
from systems using surface water ever year and from
systems using ground water once every three years, two
bacteriological samples per month for 12 months of
operation, and one sanitary survey each year, approaches
$375 per system. This is the estimated amount that the
US. Forest Service should be spending in professional
time, expenses, and laboratory costs to provide tile
needed suri’eillance.
8
-------
p
ii
.1
SCOPE
q
-------
SCOPE OF SYSTEMS STUDIED
There are 154 National Forests under the juris-
diction of the U.S. Forest Service. They comprise 182
million acres of land diverse in vegetation, scenery, and
climate. In 1973, the Forest Service recorded approxi-
mately 71 million visitor-days at its developed areas and
several times this for all forest areas.
This study covered 119 drinking water systems in
nine National Forests. A water system as defined by this
study includes the collection, treatment, and distribu-
tion facilities from the sources of supply to the free
flowing outlets of the distribution system.
The pilot study was centered in three geographical
areas. The California region included two forests in
southern California and one in nothem California. Three
forests in Colorado comprised those studied in the
Rocky Mountain region, and three forests were visited in
North Carolina and Georgia as part of the southern
region.
Table 1 lists those forests that were visited in each
region and gives information on the visitation in each
forest in 1972. Visitation in the National Forests is
measured by visitor days. A visitor-day can be defined as
one visitor at a site for a 12-hour period, or 12
visitor-hours. For example, if an individual used a
recreation site for a full day (24 hours), two visitor-days
would be recorded for that use. Also, if 12 persons used
a site for one hour each, one visitor-day would be
recorded. The visitor-days are reported for visits to
developed areas and do not included the many sports-
men and travelers that spend time in the undeveloped
areas of the forests. The three forests studied in the
California region represent 4.5 million visitor-days per
year, those in the Rocky Mountain region 2.5 million
visitor-days, and the three in the southern region
represent 1.0 million visitor-days per year. The location
of each forest where evaluations were made is shown in
Figures 1,2, and 3.
Figure 4 summarizes the types of water systems
that were studied. Ninety-three systems (78 percent)
in the study were supplied by ground water. Of
these, 39 were predominantly supplied by springs and
54 were supplied by wells. Twenty-three of these
wells were hand pumped. Of the twenty-six (22%)
systems supplied by surface water, all but four were
supplied by streams. The remainder used lakes as raw
water sources.
U.S. Forest Service Study
TABLE I .—Sumrnary of forests included in the study
Forest
Size of Forest
(Acres)
Visitor Days in
Developed Areas
(1973)
California Region
Angeles National Forest
648,866
2,018,000
Cleveland National Forest
393,085
1,086,000
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
2,066,254
1,411,800
Total
3,108,205
4,515,800
Rocky Mountain Region
Arapaho National Forest
1,003,373
1,291,300
Pike National Forest
1,106,101
619,300
Roosevelt National Forest
776,139
589,300
Total
2,885,613
2,499,900
Southern Region
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests
783,529
513,300
Nantahala National Forest
449,281
194,900
Pisgah National Forest
478,297
313,800
Total
1,711,107
1,022,000
TOTAL
7,704,925
8,037,700
11
-------
ANGLES NATIONAL FOREST
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
FIGURE 1
NATIONAL FOREST
LOCATIONS OF FIELD EVALUATIONS IN CALIFORNIA
TA-TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST
CALIFORNIA
•0
9
0
12
-------
COLORADO
ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST
ARAPAHO NATIONAL FOREST
PIKE NATIONAL FOREST
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
FIGURE 2
LOCATIONS OF FIELD EVALUATIONS IN COLORADO
13
-------
TENNESSEE
NORTH
CAROLINA
NANTAHALA
NATIONAL FOREST
CHATTAHOOCHEE NATIONAL
FOREST
GEORGIA
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
FIGURE 3
LOCATIONS OF FIELD EVALUATIONS IN GEORGIA AND NORTH CAROLINA
14
-------
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
FIGURE 4
TYPES OF WATER SYSTEMS STUDIED
SOURCE OF WATER
ALL SYSTEMS
SOURCE OF WATER
CALIFORNIA
REGION
SOURCE OF WATER SOURCE OF WATER
ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION SOUTHERN REGION
15
-------
A summary of the water treatment practices at the
water systems that were surveyed is presented in Table
2. There was no water treatment at 80 (67 percent) of
the water systems studied. This includes Chantry Flats in
Angeles National Forest, the Crags in Pike National
Forest, and Prospector and Pickle Gulch in Arapaho
National Forest that used surface water.
Disinfection was practiced at 36 (30 percent) water
systems, including 16 ground water systems and 20
surface water systems. In addition to the four surface
water systems listed above, two other surface water
systems had sand filters but no disinfection. These were
Colbrook Station in Angeles National Forest and Big Bar
Camp in Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Chlorine was
added manually at two water systems in Arapaho
National Forest (Columbine Campground and Clear
Creek Picnic Area).
Fourteen (12%) water systems had some type of
treatment other than disinfection. This other treatment
consisted of a sand filter in all cases except for an alum
coagulation, sand and carbon filtration system at Salt
Creek Swim in Shasta-Trinity National Forest and
carbon and sand filters at Wilkerson Pass in Pike
National Forest.
US. Forest Service Study
TABLE 2.—Summary of water treatment at systems surveyed
Treatment
Type of System (Number)
System Totals (119)
Ground Water (93)
Surface Water (26)
Calif
Rocky
Mt.
South
Calif
Rocky
Mt.
South
Number
Percent
None
17
27
32
1
3
0
80
67
Disinfection Only
7
5
3
6
2
2
25
21
Disinfection and Other
Treatment
1
0
0
5
2
3
11
9
Treatment Without
Disinfection
1
0
0
2
0
C)
3
3
16
-------
- ‘a
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
•‘- • ‘:;
Jp ,
-------
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The water systems evaluated by this study were
assessed from three different but related approaches:
1. Drinking water quality was determined by
sampling the finished and distributed water.
These samples were sent to the Environmental
Protection Agency Laboratories for bac-
teriological, chemical, and physical analyses.
2. The general condition of the water systems was
determined by a field survey of each system.
(Copies of the survey forms appear in Appendix
A.)
3. The adequacy of the surveillance program was
evaluated by reviewing the bacteriological
sampling records for the previous 12 months,
chemical sampling records, and the past sani-
tary Surveys.
Water Quality Criteria
Based on water samples collected during the field
survey, water quality was compared with the Drinking
Water Standards (l)(see Table 3) and rated as either:
1. Meeting the Standards for all limits.
2. Failing to meet one or more of the “recom-
mended” limits, but meeting all of the “manda-
toiy” limits.
3. Failing to meet one or more of the “man-
datory” limits.
‘Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, 1962.
PHS Publication No. 956, Superintendent of Documents, Gov-
ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 61 pp.
2 See “Manual for Evaluation Public Drinking Water Sup-
plies,” EPA, Reprinted 1971, Previously published in 1969 as
PHS publication 1820, for basis of judgement.
3 See pages 3-6 of the Drinking Water Standards.
Facilities and Operation Criteria
Source, treatment, operation, and distribution
facilities were judged (2) either:
1. To be deficient if one or more of the following
were inadequate:
a. Source protection
b. Treatment, if needed
c. Pressure (20 psi minimum) in all areas of
the distribution system
d. Operation and control
e. Storage
f. Distribution system
Surveillance Criteria
The surveillance of a water supply system was
judged to be adequate if it met the following criteria:
1. Collection of the required number 3 of bacteri-
ological samples during the period of the year
the water system is in operation. The required
number of samples is based on the population
using the water system. A minimum of two
samples per month is required for systems
serving less than 2500 people. For the water
systems in this study the minimum of 2 samples
per month was used as the basis for evaluating
the adequacy of bacteriological survefflance.
2. A complete chemical analysis of a sample of the
water every three years.
3. At least one sanitary survey of the water system
each year.
19
-------
Recommended Physical and Chemical Limits
If the concentration of any of these constituents
are exceeded, a more suitable supply should be
sought.
The presence of the following substances in excess
of the concentrations listed shall constitute
grounds for the rejection of the supply; therefore,
their continued presence should be carefully mea-
sured and evaluated by health authorities and a
decision made regarding corrective measures or
discontinuing use of the supply.
Constituent Un’nt mg/f
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury 2
Selenium
Silver
‘in Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, 1962.
2 PrOpO J for inclusion in the Revised Drinking Water
Standards.
Fails standards in any one
month if:
a. Arithmetic average of sam-
ples collected is greater
than I per 100 ml;
b. Two or more samples (5%
or more if more than 20
examined) contain den-
sities more than 41100 ml.
When 10 ml standard por-
tions are examined, the Stan-
dards are failed in any one
month if more than 10% are
positive. The presence of the
coliforni group in three or
more portions of a standard
sample is not allowed if this
Occurs:
a. In more than one sample
per month or when less
than 20 are examined per
month;
b. In more than 5% of the
samples when 20 or more
are examined per month.
When 100 ml standard por-
tions are examined, the stan-
dards are failed in any one
month if more than 60% are
positive. The presence of the
coliform group in all five of
the portions of a standard
sample is not allowed if this
occurs
a. In more than one sample
per month when less
than fIve are examined
per month: or
b. In more than 20 percent
of the samples when five
or more are examined
per month.
U.S. Forest Service Study
TABLE 3.—Criteria for evaluating bacteriological, chemical, and physical quality of water systems studied
Mandatoiy Bacteriological Limits 1
Coliform Organisms:
Membrane
Filter
Method
Multiple Tube
Method
Constituent
Limit mg/I
Turbidity
5
(s.u.)
Color
15
(s.u.)
Arsenic
0.01
Chloride
250.
Copper
1.
Fluoride
0.8 to 1.7
Iron
0.3
(MBAS) (Foaming Agents) 2
0.5
Manganese
0.05
Nitrate
45.
Sulfate
250.
Total Dissolved Solids
500.
Zinc
5.
Mandatory Chemical
Limi&
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
1.4 to 2.4
0.05
0.002
0.01
0.05
20
-------
PROCEDU RES
I
V
9.,
- 4
I ‘: %
.
* 1
I-
4-’ -
I
—. ,
‘. —. ,i
‘
r
-v
‘ - ..I ...
- $
.-‘. - -
4.
-, - -
‘I-
-------
PROCEDURES
Office Review
The water systems to be studied were selected in
meetings with representatives of the U.S. Forest Service.
An effort was made to select geographical areas or
regions where diverse water systems would probably be
found. The determination of which systems would be
studied in a geographical area was influenced by the time
necessary to transport the water samples to the labora-
tories.
Before the field work was initiated and during the
field evaluations, records for the water systems to be
studied were reviewed. These records were found in the
Forest Service Regional Offices and the individual forest
offices. Available information was collected in the
following areas:
I. Bacteriological test results for the past year.
2. Water quality as shown by the most recently
conducted chemical analysis and the frequency
of past chemical surveillance.
3. Information contained in the most recently
conducted sanitary survey and the frequency of
past surveys.
4. Water system design and construction.
5. Guidelines and policies for construction, opera-
tion, and surveillance of water systems.
At the time of the office review, the U.S. Forest
Service was in the process of establishing a new system
of reporting, record-keeping, and follow-up maintenance
of the water supplies operated by the Forest Service.
Field Survey
U.S. Forest Service officials in the regional offices
and in the individual forests were given advance notice
and an explanation of the survey by the Forest Service’s
headquarters office. Appointments for the field survey
were made five to ten weeks in advance of the visit.
The field surveys were performed by engineers from
the headquarters office of the Water Supply Division of
the Environmental Protection Agency. A U.S. Forest
Service representative from the regional or headquarters
office accompanied the EPA engineers during the sani-
tary 1 survey of each water system. This evaluation
included a sanitary survey of the source, treatment
plant, storage, and distribution facilities of the water
system as well as a review of any records available at the
forest for past surveillance. These records were com-
bined with the records obtained in the office review.
The results of the study were recorded on PHS and
EPA standard forms and other forms developed especi-
ally for use in this study. Field determinations of the
1 5 c “Manual for Evaluating Public Drinking Water Sup-
plies,” EPA, Reprinted 1971, Previoualy published in 1969 as
PuS publication 1820, for the definition of a sanitary survey.
pH, pressure, air and water temperature, and chlorine
residual at chlorinated systems (using the orthotolidine
method) were made at each point where a water sample
was taken.
The summary of findings for each water system is
shown in Appendix B. On completion of the survey, the
individual survey forms were forwarded to those persons
responsible for each water system and other interested
U.S. Forest Service personnel.
Sampling Program
During the field study, the following samples were
taken at each water system:
1. Raw Water
Where possible, one bacteriological sample of the
raw water was taken. This sample was omitted if the
water in the system did not undergo any treatment.
In many systems, a raw water sample could not be
obtained because of the physical arrangement of the
piping system.
2. Finished Water
a. A 1-gallon grab sample was taken and sent to
the National Environmental Research Center in
Cincinnati, Ohio, to be analyzed for the follow-
ing:
b. A 1-quart sample was taken and preserved in
the field by the addition of 1 1/4 ml of
concentrated nitric acid. The sample was sent
to the National Environmental Research Center
in Cincinati, Ohio, to be analyzed for the
presence of the following trace metals:
Arsenic Lead
Barium Manganese
Cadmium Mercury
Chromium Silver
Copper Zinc
Iron
c. A 1-quart grab sample was taken and preserved
in the field by the addition of 1 ml of a 20,000
ppm solution of mercury (2.71 grams HgC 2
per 100 ml). The sample was sent to the
National Environmental Research Center in
Cincinnati, Ohio, to be analyzed for nitrates
and MBAS (methylene-blue active substances).
d. Bacteriological samples were taken from the
distribution system at a rate of at least 10
Chloride
Color
Fluoride
pH
Selenium
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Turbidity
23
-------
percent of the number required by the Drinking
Water Standards (based on the resident popu-
lation served by the system) with a minimum of
two from any water supply, except at hand
pumped systems or other systems with only
one outlet. At these supplies, only one sample
was taken.
These samples were taken at different
points in the distribution system, one close to
the treatment plant and one near the end of the
distribution line. They were taken from outlets
such as drinking fountains, restroom taps and
hosebibs in camping areas. A bacteriological
sample was taken only after satisfactorily flush-
ing the line; the chemical samples were taken
after the bacteriological samples.
Bacteriological samples were collected in
8-ounce sterile, plastic, wide-mouth, screw-
capped bottles that contained 0.2 ml of a
10-percent sodium thiosulfate solution. These
samples were iced after collection and during
transportation to the National Environmental
Research Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, or to
another central point for processing. The time
between collection and the start of the analysis
of samples that were not processed by the
delayed incubation process did not exceed 30
hours.
1 Standaid Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 13th ed., (APHA, AWWA, W1k F) American Public
Health Association. New York, N.Y., 769 pp. (1971).
2 LbId
I.aboratory Procedures
The bacteriological quality examination procedures
used in this study were those listed in Standard
Methods. 1 The membrane filter procedure was used to
examine water samples for total colilorms. Iwo pro-
cedures were used depending on the facilities for
transporting the samples to the Iaboratoiy. One pro-
cedure involved using M-endo MF broth and incubating
at 35 C for 20-24 hours. Cohform colonies detected
were verified further by transfer to lactose broth for 24-
and 48-hour periods at 35°C incubation. All positive
lactose broth tubes were then transferred to brilliant
green lactose broth at 35°C for verifIcation of total
coliforms and to EC medium at 44.5°C for detection of
fecal coliforms. The other procedure, the delayed
incubation technique, involved placing the filter on a
transport medium for shipment to the laboratoiy. The
filters were then transferred to the growth medium and
mcubated in the formal manner.
The laboratory procedures for the chemical and
physical analyses of the water samples were those of
Standard Methods, 2 except for the use of a variation of
the colorimetric titration procedure for the chloride
analysis.
24
-------
FINDINGS
S
‘I
*
3’
0
M
I’
4$’ ,,
‘
1
9
..
I
lb
&
• It :•
I • •
I
f
•b
1*
•1
I ”
0
-------
FINDINGS
Water Quality
Sixty-four (54 percent) of the 119 drinking water
systems studied delivered water that failed to meet some
constituent limit of the Drinking Water Standards.
Thirty-six systems (30 percent) failed at least one
mandatory chemical or bacteriological limit and 40(34
percent) failed at least one recommended limit. These
figures are shown in graphic form in Figure 5. Figure 6
illustrates the number of systems failing to meet specific
constituent limits. As can be seen, the iron standard and
the coliform standard were most frequently failed.
US. Foi st Service Study
TABLE 4.—Drinking water standards limits not met, by geographical area
Constituent
Forests in the
California Region (40)
Forests in the
Rocky Mountain Region (39)
Forests in the
Southern Region (40)
Number Percent
Number Percent
Number Percent
Chloride
Color
Iron
Manganese
MBAS
Total Dissolved Solids
Turbidity
Zinc
Coliform Organisms
Fluoride
Silver
Recommended Limits Not Met
0 0 1 3 0 0
3 8 2 5 2 5
8 20 9 23 13 33
7 18 3 8 5 13
0 0 1 3 0 0
4 10 2 5 0 0
3 8 1 3 3 8
1 3 0 0 9 23
Mandatory Limits Not Met
11 28 0 0 13 33
0 0 11 28 0 0
1 3 0 0 0
U.S. Forest Service Study
TABLE 5.—Water systems surveyed failing to meet drinking water standards, by source
Constituent
Ground Water (93) Surface Water (26)
Number Percent Number Percent
Chloride
Color, 1 ,
Iron
Manganese
MBAS
Total l)issolved Solids
Turbidity
Zinc
Coliform Organisms
Fluoride
Silver
Recommended Limits
1 1 0 0
7 8 0 0
26 28 4 15
14 15 1 4
1 1 0 0
6 6 0 0
7 8 0 0
10 11 0 0
Mandatory Limits
17 18 7 27
11 12 0 0
1 1 0 0
27
-------
119
120— ______
SYSTEMS
100 —
TOTAL FAILING
NUMBER TO MEET
OF AT LEAST ONE
80— SYSTEMS SYSTEMS CONSTITUENT
SYSTEMS. FAILING DWS LIMIT
FAILING .10 MEET 64. .
NUMBER OF’ TO MEET AT LEAST ONE
60—
WATER SYSTEMS AT LEAST ONE RECOMMENDED
MANDATORY OWS LIMIT
DWS LIMIT 40
4O — 36.
1000i
2O — 30% 34% 54%
up—
U.S FOREST SERVICE STUDY
FIGURE 5
NUMBER OF SYSTEMS FAILING TO MEET STANDARDS
-------
30
IaJ
—
C,,
FOREST SERVICE STUDY
CONSTITUENT LIMIT OF THE DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
30
20
24
(20%)
p .-
. .
I z
p.-—
C,,”,
(‘
l.IJ
15
F—i
RECOMMENDED UMIT
MANDATORY LIMIT
11
‘no’
I /0
10
fOo/
/0
1 1
6
z
0
0
-I
0
C,,
I ”
z
CD
1
(1%1
I .1
0
0
1
z
—
1
1 10/
liFe
1
I .-
0
—
I-
0
0
C -)
U)
0
U .S.
MEET A
U,
‘U
0
0
-J
C.,
FIGURE 6 SYSTEMS FAILING TO
-------
s se n in Table 4, the Drinking Water Standards
limits were failed with approximately the same fre-
quency in each part of the countiy, with the exception
of fluoride and coliform standards. All systems not
complying with the fluoride standard were in Colorado
and all systems failing to meet the coliform standard
were in California, North Carolina and Georgia.
Table 5 compares water quality by the source of the
raw water. The physical and chemical quality of the
surface water was found to be far superior to that of the
ground water. The standards failed by water from a
surface source were iron, manganese and coliform. The
bacteriological quality of the ground water was sli itly
better than that of the surface water.
The maximum concentrations of various physical
and chemical constituents in excess of the Drinking
Water Standards are listed in Table 6. As can be seen, the
maximum levels of zinc, iron, color, turbidity, and total
dissolved solids were very hi i. The frequency distribu-
tions in Table 7 provide a more descriptive picture of the
levels found.
Figure 7 compares disinfection practices at the
water systems found to have bacteriological contamina-
tion on the day of the survey. On the basis of samples
collected on the visit, twenty-four systems showed
bacteriological contamination. There was no disinfection
being practiced at 17 (71 percent) of these systems. Six
(25 percent) systems had chlorination equipment, but
no chlorine residual could be detected in the distribution
system water at the time of the survey.
U.S. Forest Service Study
TABLE 6.—Maximum concentration of
physical and chemical constituents f iImg
to meet limits for systems surveyed
Constituent
ConcentratE
on mg/L
Chloride (250)
500
Color (15)
Fluoride (1 4.24)1
50
4.0
(s.u.)
iron (0.3)
12.2
Manganese (0.05)
0.88
MBAS(0.5)
1.1
Silver (0.05)’
0.11
Total Dissolved Solids (500)
1340
Turbidity (5)
80
(s.u.)
Zinc(S)
33
) PUS Drinking Water Standard
Mandatory Limit
Bacteriological Surveillance
Since bacteriological samples collected at the time
of the field survey can only give an indication of the
quality of water at a gwen time and not a complete
picture of water quality over a period of time, an effort
was made to gather the records of bacteriological
examinations made in the last 12 months before the
field survey. Records of tests analyzed by State labora-
tories were examined, and the bacteriological quality
and number of bacteriological samples collected each
month from the distribution system were recorded.
The number of bacteriological samples taken in the
last year varied widely, depending in part on the length
of the operating season of the system. Only four systems
(3 percent) had records of an acceptable bacteriological
surveillance program.* Three of these four systems were
in Colorado and the other was in North Carolina. No
samples were taken during three or more months at
sixty-six (55 percent) of the water systems. The best
sampling record in any of the three regions was in the
Rocky Mountain region where twenty-six of thirty-nine
systems (67 percent) had samples taken during three or
snore months. Figure 8 compares the bacteriological
monitoring at the water systems studied.
systems (33 percent) had no samples taken during three
or more months.
An examination of the bacteriological quality for
the twelve months prior to the field visit revealed that
forty-two (35 percent) of the systems failed the Drink-
ing Water Standards for one or more months. Again, the
best record of bacteriological quality of any of the three
regions was the Rocky Mountain region where seven of
thirty-nine systems (18 percent) failed the Drinking
Water Standards for one or more months. A total of
eleven systems (9 percent) failed the Drinking Water
Standards for two or more months.
Chemical Surveillance
Records of the chemical analysis of water at U.S.
Forest Service systems were almost non-existent. Eight
of the water systems in Colorado had a chemical analysis
of their water in 1973. Also, the water from one system
in California had been analyzed. Except for these nine
systems (8 percent) there were no records available for a
chemical analysis at any other water systems. None of
the chemical analyses performed included all of the
constituents in the Drinking Water Standards.
Sanitary Surveys
Where they existed, the records of sanitary surveys
of the Forest Service water systems were evaluated.
Records of sanitary surveys were available at only five (4
percent) systems. These were located in Colorado and
means that the sampling frequency as stated in the
Drinking Water Standards (a iniiumum of two samples per
month) was met at least every month of operation except one.
30
-------
0- 25
26- 50
51- 75
76-100
101-200
201-225
226-250
501-1,000
1,001-1,500
>1,500
112
2
2
I
0
0
4
2
0
MBAS (Foaming Agents)
.250 117
.250- .500
.501-1.500
1
0-.060
.061-.120
.121-.180
.181-.240
.241-.300
Iron
53
21
8
I
6
.301-.600
.601-.900
>.900
8
3
19
0-.010
.011-.020
.021-.03 0
.031-.040
.041-.050
Manganese
78
11
5
3
7
.051-.100
.101-.150
>.150
4
6
5
0-1.0
1.1- 2.0
2.1- 3.0
3.1- 4.0
4.1- 5.0
Turbidity
93
6
4
5
4
5.1-10.0
10.1-15.0
>15.0
2
0
5
0- 1.0
1.1- 2.0
2.1- 3.0
3.1- 4.0
4.1- 5.0
Zinc
89
10
4
3
3
5.1-10.0 10
10.1-15.0 0
>15.0 0
US. Forest Service Study
TABLE 7.—Frequency distributions of various chemicals that failed
to meet the Drinking Water Standards
(Line indicates Drinking Water Standards Limit)
Range I Number
Range I Number
Chloride
251-500
1
0-3.0
3.1- 6.0
6.1- 9.0
9.1-12.0
12.1-15.0
Color
16
79
11
2
4
15.1-30.0
30.1-45.0
>45.0
2
2
3
0-.40
.41- .80
.81-1.20
1.21-1.60
1.61-2.00
Fluoride
88
7
6
5
2
2.01-4.00
4.01-6.00
>6.01
10
1
0
0-.010
.011-.020
.021-.030
.031-.040
.041-.050
Silver
117
1
0
0
0
.051-.100
.l01-.1S0
>.150
0- 100
101- 200
201- 300
301- 400
401- 500
Total
Dissolved
Solids
0
1
0
65
24
19
6
0
31
-------
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
FIGURE 1
STATUS OF DISINFECTION AT 24 SYSTEMS
SHOWING COIJFORM CONTAMINATION
6 SYSTEMS (25%) WITH
CHIORINATORS BUT
NO CHLORINE RESIDUAL
11 SYSTEMS (71%) WITH NO DISINFECTION EQUIPMENT
32
-------
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLING
FREQUENCY
3% MEl THE STANDARDS
IN THE PRECEDING YEAR
FIGURE 8
SUMMARY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL MONITORING
AT WATER SYSTEMS STUDIED
91% FAILED THE STANDARDS
FOR TWO OR MORE MONTHS
35%
FAILED THE STANDARDS
ONE MONTH OR MORE
65%
MET THE STANDARDS
IN THE PREcEDING
YEAR
33
-------
were all done in 1973. None of the other water systems
had records of sanitary surveys.
Operation, Control and Protection
A sanitary survey was made of each of the 119
water systems. On the basis of this survey, judgements
were made as to the adequacy of the source protection,
adequacy of operation and control, and the need for
major improvements. The national results are sum-
marized in Figure 9.
Fifty-four (45 percent) of the water systems studied
did not have adequate source protection; 43 percent of
these were in Colorado, 33 percent in California, and 24
percent in North Carolina and Georgia.
Forty-two (35 percent) of the water systems studied
had inadequate operation and control; 31 percent of
these were in Colorado, 48 percent in California, and 21
percent in North Carolina and Georgia.
Sixty (50 percent) of the water systems studied
were judged not capable of delivering a continuous
supply of safe drinking water without major improve-
ments. Major improvements as used here means a change
in source, treatment equipment, distribution system,
and/or storage facilities to help assure safe water at all
times. Forty-three percent of these systems were in
Colorado, thirty-fIve percent in California and twenty-
two percent in North Carolina and Georgia.
Number of
Supplies That
Chlorinate
The source of water for each system was evaluated
as to its ability to provide adequate quantities of water
during its entire period of operation. Three water
systems in California, and two in Colorado had ex-
perienced periods of water shortages. All of the Cal-
ifornia systems with shortages were in Angeles National
Forest and all those in Colorado were in Pike National
Forest.
The water pressure was recorded in two places at all
water systems having a distribution system. The pressure
was judged to be adequate if it exceeded 20 p.s.i. at all
points in the distribution system. There were ninety-six
systems with a distribution system. Sixteen (17 percent)
of these systems had inadequate pressure; 44 percent of
these were in Colorado, 44 percent in California, and 12
percent in North Carolina.
Table 8 summarizes the chlorination practices and
their effectiveness at the water systems surveyed. The
chlorine residual was determined at two separate places
in the distribution system at appropriate water systems.
No chlorine residual was detected in the water at
twenty-two (61 percent) of the systems where chlorina-
tion equipment was operated. A chlorine residual was
found in one location at 4 (II percent) of the systems
where chlorination was practiced. A chlorine residual
was found in both locations at 10 (28 percent) of the
systems where chlorination was practiced.
Chlorine
Residual
Found at
Both
Sampling
Points
30
25
28
Percent of those that Chlorinate
Chlorine
Residual
Found at
One
Sampling
Point
15
6
11
Chlorine
Residual
Found at
Neither
Sampling
Point
55
69
61
Source or Area
U.S. Forest Service Study
TABLE 8.-Chlorination practices and their effectiveness at water systems surveyed
Surface Water
Ground Water
TOTAL
20
16
36
Supplies in California
Region
19
42
5
53
Supplies in Rock Mt.
Region
9
22
33
45
Supplies in Southern
Region
8
0
0
100
TOTAL
36
28
11
61
34
-------
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
FIGURE 9
SUMMARY OF SANITARY CONDITIONS
AT WATER SYSTEMS STUDIED
35%
INADEQUATE
OPERATION AND
CONTROL
65%
ADEQUATE OPERATION AND C
50%
MAJOR PROV N TS NEEDED
50%
SYSTEM ACCEPTABLE WITHOUT
MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS
35
-------
DISCUSSION
;
I
W4
a
p
a
1 mN _
a 4
c i ,
‘,. .p
4
4L
! ! .
4
I
I
-------
DISCUSSION
General
The U.S. Forest Service has constructed and oper-
ated more recreational facilities than any other agency
of the Federal Government. The provision of recrea-
tional opportunities for the public is one of the
responsibilities of the Forest Service and the public has
responded enthusiastically as is evidenced by the 71
million visitor-days recorded at its developed areas. Due
to the way a visitor-day is defined, there are probably
many more actual visitors, making the quality of water
consumed by the public of considerable health impor-
tance. The public assumes and rightly expects that the
drinking water made available to them is safe for
consumption and will be esthetically pleasing. The
recommendations included in this report are presented
with these objectives in mind.
The Forest Service has a Division of Engineering
which acts as consultant for the sanitary facilities in the
forests. The engineering offices are located in the
Regional Offices, National Forest Supervisor’s Offices,
and some ranger districts. They prepare plans for water
systems on request, but other personnel working for a
Forest Supervisor or District Ranger may design, install,
and operate a water system without the services of a
trained engineer or sanitarian knowledgeable in the
public health aspects of design considerations.
Other studies by the Environmental Protection
Agency have shown the effectiveness of having a single
group responsible for the approval of water system
designs and the subsequent surveillance of the water
systems. A classification system similar to that used by
the Environmental Protection Agency 1 is of great help
in assuring the reliability of the water systems. Under a
system similar to the one used by EPA, the chemical and
bacteriological sampling programs would be monitored,
sanitary surveys performed, and designs approved by a
single group having the responsibility of approving a
system as suitable for use or prohibiting the use of a
system. Enough deficiencies in surveillance, facilities,
and operation were found in this study to demonstrate
the need for this centralized authority.
One of the problems facing all agencies is in
applying established criteria and standards for municipal
systems to the small types of water systems found in this
study. These small systems have water demands that
vary to a large degree during the week. Also, due to
economic considerations, small systems have a difficult
time providing the full water treatment that large water
systems routinely employ.
Water Quality
The Drinking Water Standards have been promul-
gated to provide specific limits for substances which are
toxic or cause adverse health effects in man. These
substances are usually naturally occurring in the earth,
and can be dissolved into the water by the passage of
water through certain formations in the earth’s surface
or by the addition of these substances to water by man
(i.e., through pollution). Because of these processes,
substances may be found in drinking water in con-
centrations that are potentially hazardous to health.
Since 54 percent of the water systems did not
comply with some constituent limit of the Drinking
Water Standards, there is a general need for improve-
ment in water quality for the supplies studied. This need
for improvement is not as critical for those supplies
which did not comply with only the recommended
standards as it is for those which failed to meet the
mandatory limits, but improvement is important for all
these systems.
Two mandatory chemical limits were not met by
water systems in this study: fluoride and silver. Ex-
posure to high levels of fluoride over a period of time
may cause dental fluorosis and bone changes, especially
for children. The chief effect of silver in the body is
cosmetic. It consists of a permanent blue-grey discolora-
tion of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. Those
systems producing water that failed a mandatory stan-
dard were generally grouped in the same geographical
area. The source of the problems should be further
investigated and the water resampled for another chemi-
cal analysis. If the results of this study are confirmed, a
new water source should be found or treatment insti-
tuted to ensure that the water is safe to drink.
The results of this study also show that 34 percent
of the systems produced water that did not meet at least
one recommended limit of the Drinking Water Stan-
dards. These recommended limits are primarily esthetic
in nature and are divided into chemical and physical
characteristics. They relate to materials that impart
objectionable taste, appearance, or odor to the water,
and are important because a consumer may reject a safe
water supply if its taste or appearance is unsatisfactory
to him. Therefore, these limits should not fail the DWS
when a more suitable water source can be made
available.
The recommended standards that were not met
were those for chloride, color, iron, manganese, MBAS,
total dissolved solids, turbidity, and zinc. In almost all
cases, these recommended standards and the mandatory
standards were not met for ground water, with the
surface water having better chemical quality. The surface
sources found in this study were in relatively remote
areas and generally not subject to pollution by man.
The coliform group of bacteria are used as indicator
organisms in testing the sanitaly quality of drinking
water. This bacteria group proliferates in the intestines
“A Guide to the Interstate Carrier Water Supply Certifi-
cation Program,” Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C. April 1973.
39
-------
of man; and when found in drinking water, indicate the
potential presence of pathogenic or disease-producing
organisms. The Drinking Water Standards prescribe
specific criteria for the maximum concentration of
coliform bacteria and require that immediate corrective
action be taken if this concentration is exceeded.
At the time of the field survey, seventeen (18
percent) of the ground water systems and seven (27
percent) of the systems using surface water as a raw
water source were contaminated with coliform bacteria.
The meaning of these statistics in relation to the
facilities and operation of each system and the surveil-
lance of each system will be discussed later. Immediate
steps should be taken to rectify the problem. More
samples should be taken until the water supply can be
shown to be safe.
Bacteriological Surveillance
The standard used to judge the acceptability of the
bacteriological surveillance program is the one used to
certify the use of a water supply for an interstate
carrier, 1 the legislatively mandated duty of the Federal
Government. Ninety-seven percent of the water supplies
would not be classified as “provisionally approved’s
under this system. Only four water supplies in this study
were found to have an acceptable bacteriological sur-
veillance program.
bacteriological sampling practices so that a regular
program of surveillance is implemented which would
comply with Drinking Water Standards requirements.
This regular program should be continued during the
entire period the system is operational and serving
drinking water to the traveling public and should include
the provision for follow-up or check samples when
unsatisfactory results are obtained. All samples should
be sent to a laboratory certified by a State or an EPA
approved certifying officer. While there is an advantage
in sending the samples to a central laboratory, there are
instances where this may be impossible within 30 hours
of collection. In such cases, bacteriological analyses
made in a certified field laboratory are satisfactory.
The bacteriological quality, as revealed by the
review of the results of the bacteriological sampling for
the past twelve months, was not satisfactory. Thirty-five
percent of the systems failed the Drinking Water
Standards for one or more months. With this back-
ground there can be no surprise that 20 percent of the
bacteriological samplies collected for the field evalua-
tions in this study were contaminated.
Chemical Surveillance
None of the water systems studied were subject to a
regular program of chemical surveillance. There was no
Guide to the Interstate Carrier Water Supply Certifi-
cation Program,” Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C. April 1973.
chemical analysis on record at 92 percent of the water
systems studied. None of the water systems that had a
chemical analysis on record had a complete analysis for
all constituents in the Drinking Water Standards.
The water from all drinking water systems should be
tested for all chemical constituents listed in the Drinking
Water Standards before the water is made available to
the traveling public. In addition, a complete chemical
analysis is recommended for systems supplied by ground
water every three years and surface water every year, or
more often when there is reason to believe the chemical
quality is deteriorating. The CCE ar i pesticides analysis
may be omitted for ground water systems unless there is
reason to suspect ground water contamination. Signs of
deteriorating water quality might include unpleasant
taste and/or odor or the occurrence of frequent public
or operating personnel complaints.
The results of all chemical testing should be
forwarded to one office in each U.S. Forest Service
Region so that trends in chemical quality and frequency
of surveillance may be reviewed on a continuing basis.
Sanitaiy Surveys
Ninety-six percent of the water systems did not
have a sanitary survey in the past year. Although
operating personnel at the National Forests generally
made visits to the water systems and seemed to be
somewhat aware of sanitary conditions, more thorough
investigations by trained investigators of the condition
of the water systems are needed. Yearly sanitary surveys
should include checks on the system’s physical facilities
used to treat, distribute and store the water and the
adequacy and condition of source protection. Any
deficiencies noted in the sanitary surveys should be
corrected.
Operation, Control, and Protection
The adequacy of the source protection, adequacy of
the operation and control, and the need for major
improvements for each water system were determined
by a sanitary survey of each water system. The adequacy
of the source protection was based on the existence of a
formation seal in vells, sanitary seal in wells, properly
installed vents, adequately protected and drained spring
and well pits, protection for springs, etc. Forty-five
percent of the systems did not meet the criteria for
adequate source protection.
The adequacy of the operation and control was
based on whether or not chlorine residuals were checked
daily in the distribution systems and, if other treatment
was employed. .vhether or not the treatment facilities
were checked daily for optimum operation. Operation
and control was also deemed to be inadequate if no
chlorine residual was found in the distribution system on
the day of the field evaluation. Thirty-five percent of the
40
-------
water systems did not have adequate operation and
control.
For each drinking water system, a determination
was made of the capability of the system to deliver a
continuous supply of safe drinking water without
improvements in the system. Consideration was given to
the availability of sufficient raw water to prevent water
shortages, existence of cross-connections, proximity to
sources of pollution, use of disinfection, adequate
capacities of the pumps, adequate pressure in all parts of
the system, detention time for maximum benefit from
treatment, properly covered and vented storage tanks,
etc. There were sixty (50 percent) water systems in need
of improvements to help assure safe water at all times.
Water shortages were found to have occurred at five
water systems in California and Colorado. At a mini-
mum, periods of no water are a great inconvenience to
visitors. But there is a temptation to pump water from
other sources which may be less safe or transport water
by truck to the water system. This extra handling
through temporaly connections decreases the margin of
safety in any water system. There is also a problem of
low water pressure as the system runs dry. For these
reasons, new water sources should be developed and
treatment instituted as necessary to assure an adequate
quantity of water.
- Low pressure in drinking water systems is a problem
because it reduces the protection of the system from the
backflow of contaminated water. Unsafe water may be
siphoned into a water system through any kind of
temporary or permanent cross connection. Low pressure
(less than 20 p.s.i.) was found at sixteen water systems.
The pressure problems may have been due in part to
underdesigned pipe size in the distribution system, i.e.,
the pipes were not able to handle the high demand. More
attention should be given to this problem in future
design work.
There were four systems in this study employing
surface water as a source of raw water and not treating
the water in any way. Surface water, by its very nature,
can become contaminated very quickly and easily, and
this condition can continue unnoticed until the next
routine bacteriological sample. For this reason, all water
from a surface source should be thsinfected before use.
One of the major deficiencies noted in this study
was the improper operation of disinfection equipment.
For those twenty-four systems contaminated with coil-
form bacteria; six did not disinfect. Chlorinators were
installed at eighteen systems showing coliform con-
tamination. However, seventeen of these systems carried
no detectable chlorine residual on the day of the field
evaluation. Although the remaining system had a
chlorine residual, this was not sufficient to prevent
contamination due to the severe source protection
problems and poor condition of the facilities. Of those
systems which chlorinated, twenty-two (61 percent) had
no chlorine residual on the day of the survey.
Chlorination of a water system involves several
operating problems. Quite often the chlorine feed
system becomes clogged or the chlorinator is inadver.
tently turned off, some consumers complain about the
taste and odor of chlorinated water, and during periods
of low water use, the chlorine residual is dissipated in
the distribution system and sometimes in the storage
tank. The fact that a chlorinator has been placed in the
water system does not guarantee a safe supply. If
chlorinators are to be effectively used for disinfection,
daily inspections of the feed equipment and deter-
minations of the chlorine residuals must be conducted.
Booster chlorination of the water as it flows to the
system from the storage tanks may be necessary.
All of the foregoing operational problems emphasize
the necessity for some type of operator training. Some
of the individuals responsible for the water systems do
not have a full knowledge of what they should be doing
and the reasoning behind these duties. A short course or
booklet should be developed that would explain why the
required maintenance and surveillance practices are
important.
Surveillance Program Resource Requirements
The staffing and cost of an adequate surveillance
program for a water system operated 12 months per year
is about 3.3 man-days and $375 per system. This is
calculated according to the following assumptions:
1. The average annual estimated personnel cost for
surveillance is $20,000 per-man year.
2. Program administration is 25% of surveillance.
3. The time required for sanitary surveys and
related technical assistance (iiduding training)
of a water system is 1.0 man-days per system.
Assuming 220 man-days per year, the cost of
this surveillance is $90 per system per year.
4. One chemical analysis will be performed for
each system using surface water every year and
for each system using ground water once every
three years. The manpower required to perform
the laboratory analyses averages .99 man days
per system per year and the cost averages $90
per system per year.
5. The manpower required to perform the analysis
of two bacteriological samples per month is .66
man days per system per year. The total cost
including sample bottles, mailing containers,
labels, and postage is $120 per system per year
for 12 months of oneration.
The total estimated water supply program man-
power needs and costs are summarized in Table 9.
Since the U.S. Forest Service has approximately
10,000 water systems under its complete control, the
Forest Service should be allocating at least $3,750,000
to its surveillance program. The total manpower needs
41
-------
are 33,100 man-days per year or 150 man-years. Until
the Forest Service has the laboratory capability to
analyze the required samples, some of this work must be
done on a contract basis.
The manpower and costs required for just the
sanitaty suiveys and technical assistince and the aduiin-
istration of this part of the program is calculated as
follows:
U.S. Forest Survey Study
TABLE 9.—Estimated water supply
program manpower needs and costs
(per system per year)
Program Activity Man Days Cost
Surveillance
Sanitary Surveys, Tech.
Assistance
Chemical Surveillance
Bacteriological Surveillance
Subtotal 2.65
Program Administration
@ 25% of Surveillance . 66
3.31
Manpower (For 10,000 Forest Service Systems)
(1.0+.25 (1.0)) 10,000= 12,500 man-days per year or
57 man-years per year
Costs (For 10,000 Forest Service Systems)
($90 + .25($90)) 10,000 $1,125,000 per year
1.00
.99
.66
$ 90
90
120
$300
75
$375
TOTAL
42
-------
PARTICI PANTS
-------
PARTICIPANTS
The following persons and organizations contributed to the successful completion of the pilot study:
Environmental Protection Agency
Director, Water Supply Division . . James H. McDermott
Deputy Director William N. Long
Project Director Curtis F. Fehn
Project Consultant John A. Cofrancesco
Project Advisors Thomas N. Hushower
James E. Warren
Field Evaluation Team Keith A. Boyd
Curtis F. Feirn
Thomas N. Hushower
Harold M. Scott
Data Processing George C. Kent
Laboratory Support . . National Environmental Research Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Report Preparation . . . . Curtis F. Fehn
Linda Gottfried
Linda Sullivan
U.S. Forest Service
Headquarters William C. Koizow
Regions Lee Aidridge
Terry Mc Laughlin
Roger Mizell
William Opfer
Walter Weaver
Roger White
45
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
SANITARY SURVEY FORMS
USED IN
STUDY
49
-------
ALYSIS
P. E CU IP. EU
. ATER
SUPPLY
CATEGORY
9 Cl tj
I V . 6.121
L C 1ION OF WATER SUPPLY —
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE CF WATER PROGRAMS
WATER SUPPLY PRDGRA? S DIVISION
DEHTIFICATION Of WATER SAMPLE
RIAL NO.
I ( •‘1 -
) $ c
PU! CFI IN COLS.
CITY. COUNTY. STATE
FOR OFF IC
USE ONLY
1
ATER SUPPLY NAME
3. DATE OF SAMPLiNG
0
MO.
BEGINNING DATE
OF COMPOSITE F I
19
CAY ENDING DATE MO. DAY YR .
L] OF COMPOSITE I
DR DATE 01 I I L I UL ]
22 GRAB SAMPLE 23 78
11111 RESERVOIR LDISTRIBUTIOH flOTHER
S I ST EM
2 I 0
4. SAMPLE FROM j 1 TREATMENT 111 V(ELL
PLANT
8 4
. SA! PLING POINT
LOCATION AND/OR
OESCR IPTION ______________________
. TYPE OF
WATER SAMPLED
PARTIALLY
LII FINISHED 111111 TREATED LRAW
8 4 2
SOURCE OF LIISURFACE 111 CROUNO
WATER
B 4
Fi. SAMPLING 111 COM1 OSI1E fl ORA0
METHOD
8 4
f 1 TRACE
LI ORGANIC LI ELEMENTS
8 4
GO NOT
WRITE BELOW
THIS I1NE
30 32
‘LI
I
fl
33
HI 39
L
El COMBINED
[ : t; -
2
._ r .) • 5 - t
LI.1 . T•
E—I RADIO-
L.i L_JCHEMICAL
2 1
LI FEDERAL SPECIAL
INSTALLATION STUDY
2 1
01 H ER
111 0TH ER
11 DTHER
LI 0 T HER
[ I1OT ER
CON *UN TI
El YfATEI [ jcWs
sUPPLY
8
OF SA’ PLE
REM AR 1’ S
1. APPEARANCE
12. .ODITIONA1 ___________________________ _________—
i—i ’ r i O ER
_____ ____________________________ L.
L E — — — -- -- —. -
• s : o. __ _. _______ .
-------
ENVIRONHEIiTAL PROTECIIOU AGEUCY
Office of Water Programs
Division of Water Hygiene
IflOIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLY SURVEY QUESTLO t A!RE
Card 1
NAME ____________________________________________ SAMPLE £10. iJ_EI
ADDRESS___________________________________________ Lçl
CoL ____________________________________________
I. THE S3URCE
9 A. SpringUJ; Ve11EJ; Surface Sourcell; Cistern 111
10 B. 0n-or mise ; Off-premise D(distance: — )
‘ Ii C. Ground 4ater from: Sand/Gravelç; Lirnestonefl; Sandstone 111 ;
Otier Formation 0 Specify 2 UnknownD
0. Cons tractlon: By Contractor l ; Owner/Occupant 0; Other 0;
Unknown El 2
II. A. SPRI 1G
13 1. FlowingO; Non-FlowingO; Inter iittentD
14 2. Eicaserient: Brick, Block, or Stonefl; Reinforced
ConcreteD; OtherD
15 General Condti on: Go d 0; Fair 0; Poor D
16 3. Surface Drainage Controlled? YesD; t oD
17 4. kdequate Fencing around spring? YesIil;
18 5. Water withdrawn with: PowEr PunnD; Hand Pu pD;
BucketD; Gravity FlowD; OtherD a
19-20 6. Estinated Minirum Capacity: 111111 G?t1
Uun ri c
B. WELL
21 1. Dugfl; DrivenD; JettedEj; eoredfl; Drill’dD
2. Dug el1:
22 Acceptable 1inir y to lOS or nore? Y s ; 0
23 Acceptable cover? Yes 0 ; o 0
24 Masonry or cthar jointe lining, scaled: YesD; ofl;
Unknown D
Reconstructed, sealed and filled: Yes.D; :a 0
General oaditiot : GoodO; FairD; p orD 2
3. Othar Types oU a11s:
27 23 a. Casing: Dianeter: F I inches, I.D.
c
-------
CaL
20 tcel or slack ironD; Galveniied iron or Stoel Eli
P1a tic El ; Masor 1 y or Ceramic El] Other Li 2
Joints Screwed Coupling [ J; Joints il 1d dD ; UnknownD •.
31 Wall thickness Std. or tietter? Yes [ 1; Io [ 1
b. Depths: ______
2-34 Ground surface to bottom of well: 1 1 11 Ft.
3 —37 Ground surface to bottom of casing: [ i_il Ft.
F1u ri C
c. ormation Seal: -
38 Cernent grout seal frocr depth of S to 10’ up to surfdc D;
10 to 20’ up to surface Eli; Fine sand (natural) seal 10
to 20’ up to surface Li; Puddled clay seal 5 to 20’ up to
surfaceLl; No apparer t formation seal between casing and
earthtlj; Concealed (buried) formation grout seal
reported Li; Unknown
d. Sanitary Well Seal:
39 Water tight cover? Yes L:1; El
40 Well exposed to flooding by surface water? YesD; noD
e. Well Pit
41 Pit around well? Yes Li; noD
42 Pit has acceptable cover? YesIJ; NoEJ
43 Pit drains to open air? YesD; noD
44 Pit drains to drain line or sewer? YesD ; OD
45 Possible to flood pit in any way? Yes 0 ; u Li
45 Pitless adapter? YesD; n D -
47 Pitless adaçter with top of well burled or below ground
level: YesLJ; iio [ J
48 f. e1l “Fi1ter ’ or S,reen*
Open hole El; Pcrforeted or slotted oipeD; Gravel
Pack ; Sand (tiell) point or screen of horizontal
endless slot typeD ; Other type of screen 0
49 g. Age of Well: <2 yes * 0 ; 2-S yrs. LI ; 6-10 y r Li
11-20 yrs.D ; >20 yes. U
so c. U P AT S0U CE: Yes ; :° D ; Buet LI
El 1. hind ur p LI; “Shal lcd well” (Low—U It) or Ccr.tri Fjc l
pun D; ‘Deep well”(Hi-Lift) Jet Pu pfl; Su ib1
pu p 0: Piston Purp 1; floreJ
to be ccnfused with ‘f lter ” or str ncr at rc cd to suct’.an nlo
of p’ic”p.
-------
Col.
I. PHY ICA1 QUALITY OF ATEP .
9 1. Cc oredEI It; Turbid EIJ; Clear Contains send [ 1
10 2. Tas : Good Fair 0; Poor* fl _____________
11 3. Evidence of iron or r anganes pro i1er. : 0 [ J ; i o H
4. ac r Softener jr regular operation: Ye’; o ci
13 5. Other water conditic.nor devices used: iesfl; ti [ i
J. PUBLIC AGENCY
14 1. Has any public ;er.c , inspected this supply at any titue
within the last t .o years? YesD —____
, L o D Unkncjwn [ -1
15 2. Has bacteriological analysis ever been nade on the water?
Yes ; Date —
____________________________________________ No El ; UnkriownEl
16 . If “yes”, was the water found “safe”? Yes [ I]; NoUJ
1 2
17 b. If “no” (under 2a) , were corrections reconmended?
Yes El ; t;o C]
I
18. c. Were corrections made? YesD NoD
19 d. After corrections were made, was water retested?
Yes ** ____________________________ ;
20 3. Did the owner, before attempting any construction at the
source or befere using the source, consult any agency
about its suitability? Yes 0 ** ______________________
— ;.Noçl
21 4. Have any chemical analyses ever been nade on the water?
Yes D Date ________ , **
- U ; Unknown
K. USER’S PREFEREt CE
22 L User prefers: Present suppiy ; Another or inproved
individual su plyD; A public supply 0
23-25 1 I J 2. Reason(s) for Preference: Lower costEl; setter tasting
waterD; Softer waterD; Independence 0 ; t ore
reliable source D ; Safer D ; :ore convenient D
Other 0
tl
L. ?RES NT C3 SU PT1O
25 1. u ber of dwelli units usIng syste U____ ____
21-30 2. unber of oers r sir;g systen. Adults I I ; Children fi
31 3. Is iater shortac ever experienced: Yes ** _______________
;:ofl
) CA :. 3E i 2
* ie t if pOSSible
I t;f eicy
-------
Col
2. Puttip never breaks suctio ; Sn ti br jks iunL]
53 3. With existing p’ir , source du1iv r : 3 H;
5-10 GPM Li; 1 0 -20 CPN C] ; >20 GP i [ II
0. SURFACF SOURCE (Stre ; Le e)
54 1. Per ennia U; interoiitt n Li
56 2. Upstream: Hu er. ectivity currently on w r h d? ; io LI
55 3. Delivery: flo,i by pu opingD; y ravity [ l 1
E. CJSTE N
57 1. Catchment Area: Rooftops LI; Grour’d surface paved or coy-
. red ith per 3b1e r aterialD
58 2. Ground Area Only: Fenc dL]; Sigrs posted [ l; UnprotectedD
59 3. Cistern Construction: Above çround C]; Sew groundD;
60 BrIck or StoneD; ConcreteD; Wood 0; SteelD
ri 2 3
61 Gnneral Condition: GoodLJ; FairL.J; PoorLJ
2 r 3
62 4. Dvlce for discarding first water? Yes Li; No
1 2
63 5. Cistern Protection: Screened against roder.ts, birds?
Yes C] ; iio 0
64 5. Cleaning: Does cistern have drain wnich perr its cleaning
and flushing to waste? YesEl; NoD
65 Does cistern neod cleaning new? esD; HoD
F. WATER :PIATMENT
56 1. Sedimentation: Ye D; NoD
2. Fi1t,’at or, Through: S n : ; Other e r;D
68 3. Chlorination: .;utoriiatic [ ]; :anua1LJ
69 4. ¶oftening: YesLJ; Noçl
70 5. Other: Yes C] CDescribe) ____________________________ ; No
71 C. STORAGE (All Sourco d: Yes C]; iio Li
72 1 . Pressure tank
73 2. Other storay .: Ei vated or Ground Level ; B 1o : ground
level
74 3. C.rstruction: Steel [ ]; Srick, icck or :;tc: o El;
concreteD; :oodLi; asticEl: t erLi 2
4. Gereral Condition: Good U ; Fair U Pjor U..
. DEL VEP.Y
I. Water flows to point of us by h r C]; Po .er
ç u ping L I; Gravity LI; F ar.d ca r ’ El
E9 CA ,D .UYER 1; CA 2 — Du , . 1-8
-------
APPENDIX B
SANITARY
SURVEY
RESULTS
57
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL I/ITERSUPPI.IES
U.S. rOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Angeles National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Chantry Flat.
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGiCAL QUALITY
tlUtN3ER O MONThS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO UACTLIUOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 4
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN P YYrAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE DACTENIOLOGiCAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 6
NUMBER OF MONTHS InrT1 3ACTERIOLOGTCAL LIMITS 01 THE UWS WEIJ:
NOT MET. 8
CHEMICAL QUALITY
UWS AN ’T RY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
Source protection is inadequate.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTiNUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO x
There is a cross connection with faucets used for irrigation.
Dieir.Iection should be installed on surface sources.
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUI’PUES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE sf bv
NAME OF FOREST Angeles National Forest DATE OF SLiUVLY //liI/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Coldbrook Station STORAGE 1 stee’ & 2 con rete
TREATMENT lone SOURCE surface reservo ra
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
IN PAST YEAR OF OPF.RATION THAT NO IIACTERIOLOUJCAL
SAMPLES wERE TAKEN. 7
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONI: BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
DUMBER UP MOMTHS f 1 E 1CTEIIIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF ml: DWS WOOL
NOT NET. 0
CHEMICAL QUAL TY
DWS MANO T5RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE .OURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES x
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.31)* <.005
O.05)**
BARIUM 1.01**<.05
C/\DMIIJM (0.31 )** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* 10.
CHROMIUM (.D5)**.000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*3
COPPER (1.o)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .70 pH 7.9
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.01)** (.005
IRON (O.3)* .O23SILVER (o.O5)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** .oooSULFATE (250)* < 25.
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* 2 50TOTAL DISSOLVED 236.
MANGANESE (O.05)* .000 SOLIDS (SOO)*
MERCURY .0O05 TURBIDiTY (5 s.u.)k.j
NITOATE (45)* 8.0 ZINC ( ,i)* .076
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01 )* < .005
(0. )5 ) **
BARIUM (1 .O)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.Ol)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* <10.
CHROMIUM ( U5) .000
COlOR (I F su.)* 2
COPPER (1 .O)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to i.oo pH 8.1
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** (.005
IRON (O.3) .013 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* .25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 210,
MANGIiNLSE (O.O5)* .000 SDLIIY (50R)*
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDitY (S s.uj .2
NITRATE (45) 1.0 ZINC (E.O)* .023
PAM WATEP
DISTRIBUTION #1
SISTIIBUTIOD #2
F C L
COLt 00:1/lou ml
0
0
CULl iO 0l/ 100 ii
0
0
U
DATE OF SURVEY 7/16/73
STORAGE 1 stee1 0 I q den
SOURCE surface
IS OPE ATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES x
NO
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
.AECOAMIHQEO L I II ! •‘MANIATORY LIYUT
ALL (.911 All IILLICRPNS P11 LitIft tILtU 01 11 11 151 15115.
COLIFORM/iGO r’l
0
9
ECO (’lUIJt LI41 I “4A13 ( ( I L I I
ILL V&L91 ( ‘I AILLILIAIS PA II IA’ L (1 QI9E (ISA N]ILI1.
BAETERIOsODICAL_RESULTS
RAW NOTEPS
JISTRIDUTION 1
ISTU UTIUN ;2
COLIFORtI/iCO ml
0
0
0
6
0
-------
REPOIIT ON I OI VI DUAL HAl ER ,1JPI t. i r.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUUY
NAhE 01 1ORi 1 Angeles National Vors.t 1)ATE (II SUHVLY 7/18/13
NAME OF SUP°L Chilao Camp STORAGE 3 tmnke
TREATMENT none SOURCE iprings
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
FIUMBER OF M NTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO L ACTF RIOLOCICP L
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 4
NUMBER 0i MONTHS IN PASTYEAR OF OPERATION ThAT ONE BACtERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 8
NUMBER OF MONTHS Wrr W rTACTERIOLOrICAL LIMtTS 01: TIll DM5 WEI1L
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MAN1i 1 ’ RY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Surface drainage not controlled
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEI 1 EMTS? YES — NO X
Source of eupply is not adequate.
REPORT ON INDIVIDU L ATER SUPPLIES
1i.S. rOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Angelic National Forest
4AME OF SUPPLY Buckhotfl Station
TREATMENT sand filter
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTH 1I ’4 PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 11
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PMrV AR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONJHS WHEN Th ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. _______
ChEMICAL QUALITY
OWS I4ANDAT kY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOt4IENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
— IS THE SOUR UPROTECTI0N ADEQUATE? YES NO
Site is exposed and has limited protection.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES ‘ NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO .
Spring does not flow continuously. Presaure not adequate at all
points in distribution system, -
.ftcOI & LI’iII •. ) O TO*Y tI I I
A I. V ,I$ A ! I1 IG * I Pi 1 1tH W 1t% O I I MITt
PHYSICPL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* (.005
(0 .05 )**
BARIUM (1.O)** . .05
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)*<10.
CHROMIuM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (1 .O)* .020
RAW WATEP
DISTRIBUTION #1
OISTRIBUT7ON 02
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.5
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ol)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .032 SILVER (0.O5)** .000
LEAD (0.OS)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (Q ,5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 95
MANGANESE (O.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.) .2
NITRATE (45)* .000 ZINC ( .O)* .014
.ftC l lINDI0 LIIIIT .*p4 ATO V tl IT
ALt. VALUA% LAt IlIt.LIOAAMI PU 1 1 TH UNLIAI ATHIUIII M@tIO.
DATE OF SURVIY7/1N/73
STORAGE concrete tank
SOURCE spring
pHys1cAL rir CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.O )*,OO5 FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.6
2,4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
BARIUM (l.O)** /05 IRON (O.3)* .035 SILVER (0.05)** .000
CADMIUM (0.01 LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
CHLORIDE (250 *
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIflUP I. WATER SIU’PLTCS
U.S. FOREST SEWVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Angeles National Forest
MANE OF SUPPL Rincon Station
TREATMENT not e
rACTERIOLOG 1CAL QUALITY
t fl i1HTT PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO MAC IERIULOGL(;AL
SAMI’LES WERE TAKEN. 3
NU 1BER OF MONThS IN P SYV J 1 OF OPERATION THAT 01111 BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF NONTEIS tWE ACTER1OLOGICAL LIMITS OF [ lIE D WCR
NOT NET. 5
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS1WU T RY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOIMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Surface drainage should be controlled
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — 110 X
Water .jhortagea are experienced.
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAl . WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Angeles National Forest D ITE OF SURVEY 7/20/73
NAME OF SUPPL Jackson Lake STORAGE concrete tank
TREATMENT fl°fl SOuRCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER CF M NTFIS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 12
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE ACTERIOL0GICAL LIMITS OF ThE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL qUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES ? NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES ‘ C NO
U TC OF SUUV Y // 17/73
STORAGF 2 concrete tanks
SOURCE 2 springs
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X
NO
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .20
2.4)
IRON (O.3)* .041
LEAD (0.05)**
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* .250
MANGANESE (O.05)* .000
MERCURY ..OOO5
pH
SELEIIIIJM (O.OI)*1
SILVER (O.Oj)**
SULFATE (250)*
TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.Uj*
7.8
.Oos
.000
48.
281.
.3
PHYSICAL ANO CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* . oo5
(O.O5)**
BARIUM (1.O)** < ‘.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE 2 O *<]O
CHROI1. [ UN .05 ** .000
COLOR. (15 s.u.)* 3
CURPER (1,O)* .000
BACTERIDI OSICAL RESULTS
P CI HATEP.
LjISTRI [ iUTIG I 1
DILTRI [ PJTION II?
Lillil •.‘1 d AIO L4 T
A L L Ei E ILLI A P L IER OT ERR 5I
COLkORM/1 CO H
80
0
3
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
ARSENIC (O.0l)* ( ’.005
(0.05) **
BARIUM (I.o)** .05
CADMIUM (0.01 )**.000
CHLORIDE (250) 10.
CHROMIUM (.05)**.000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.O)* .025
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATEk
DISTRIBU1JON #1
DISTRIBUTION 2
FE C P ., C
Cot_I FOR /100 r 1
2
RESULTS
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .10 pH 7.4
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.ofl** 4.005
IRON (0.3)* .015 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* . 25.
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 78.
MANGANESE (O.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .O005 TURBIDITY (5 s,u.)* .3
NIrRATE (45)* 1.0 ZINC (5.0) 1.500
. E5QE5 LIMIT • .IIAE ATORY LIMIT
MI.L RELIED ARE MILLICRASE PER LITER UNT.E5$ OTIIERRI E METED.
FE CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml COLIFORM/l0O ml
0 0
0 0
I)
-------
REPORT ON IHOIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
HN4E OF FOREST Angeles National Forest DATE or SI NV Y 7/ o/73
NN’)E OF SUPPLY Big Pin.. Station STORAt,E Concrete took
TREATMENT nors SOIiPCE Well
BPCTERIOLOGICAt. QUALITY
NUMBER OF ?‘I NTFIS IN PAST YEAR OE OPERATION THAT NO UACTI:fl [ OLOGICAt.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 7
N1JRS R OF MONTHS IN P ST1TAR OF OPERATION TIIPIT ONE OACTFRIOIUWECAI.
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
NUMi3ER O MONTHS Rfl IV’Fi BACTERIOLOGICAL Lull 01 OIL PWS WL L
NOT MET, 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWHA DM RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY COMOITIONS
— IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
REPORT ON INUIVIOUA [ . WATER SUPPLiES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAflE OF FOREST A g.lu. National Forest’
NAME OF SUPPLY 8v1tz.r
TREATMENT ‘°flS
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
N(JMDER OF M NTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAI NO BACTERIOLOGIcAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 3
NUMBER O MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION TF AT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 9
HUM8ER OF MONTHS TI T 1ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. ________
CHEMICAL QUPLITY
OWS IIAIJOATORY LIMITS FAILED
DM5 RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE S3IJRCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO
Protection of the spring is questionable.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES ‘
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE VATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEUENTS? YES NO —
IS 11W WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (oOl)* <.005
BARIUM (1.c)** <.05
C4DI’IIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORiDE (250 * <10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
CO 1 PER (1.D)* .031
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .30 pH 7.6
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)*I .oos
IRON (O.3)* .023 SILVER (o ,O5)** .000
LEAD (o.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* (25.
M.B.A.S. (O 5 )k <.250 TOTAL DISUOLVED 217.
MANGANE5: (O,05)* .000 SOLIL . (5Q0)k
MERCURY .0005 TUR3IUITY (5 s.u)* .1
NITRATE (45)* ,1.0 ZIUC (I.a)* .130
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O’I)*<.OO5
BARIUM h,o** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .OOO
CHLORIDE (250 *
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SIU t’LILS
U.S. FORi S1 SEP/ICE STIJUY
NAIIF OF ORESI Angeles National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Deer Flats Camp
TREATMENT none
BACTERI OLOGI CAL QUALI TV
1 UMOER O NO ? ’n1 TN PAST YEAR OF OPLDA ION THAT N C) [ 3ACTERIOIDCICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 6
NUMBER OF MOUTHS IN P rV!AR OF OPERATION THAT ONL R/\CTER1OLOGICAL
SAMPLU W’\S TAKJN. 6
NUMBE O NCIT1S IThLTI rTfr Ac1E IoLo I CA! LI) ’I IS 0! ilL UW I C C I
NOT MET.
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DW3T ( TIUAT RY LIMITS FAILED
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO —
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAIIE OF FOREST Angeles National Forest DATE OF SURVLY 7/19/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Crystal Lake STORAGE steel and concrete
TREATMENT none SOURCE 5 j 085 re8erVO 1r5
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER O MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 5
NUMBER 01- MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 6
NUMBER JF MONTHS it fFT 1\CTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS or THE OWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANO 1 ’ RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X MO
IS OPEI ATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO X
Pressure not adequate at all points in the distribution system.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WAlER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES X NO —
PHYSICAL ANtI CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* <.005
O .05)**
BARIUM 1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (J.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.J5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.O)* .031
RAW HATER
DISIRI [ iUTIOM //l
UISTRIFUTIUH
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 1.00 ‘H 7.7
2.4) ** SELEHIUM (O.Ol)** _005
IRON (O.3)* .028 SILVER (O.O5) * .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* .250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 169.
MNUGANCSE (O.05)* .O00 SOLIIJS (SOU)*
MERCURY . .0005 TURSIDIT’( (5 s.u.)k 1
NITRATE ((l5)* 1.0 ZI::C (No)k .410
C DL IF OR.1/ I C 1 nil
RAW WATE C
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION 2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .80
2.4) **
IRON (O.3)* .015
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* 4250
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000
MERCURY <.0005
NITRATE (45)* <1.0
pH 7.8
SELENIUM (O.O1)** <,005
SILVER (o.05)** .000
SULFATE (250) <25.
TOTAL DISSOLVED 116.
SOLIDS (S00)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 1
ZINC (5.O)* .280
FE flt L
COLIFo: l/1 00 nil
DAlE OF SIIUVI. 1 7/ 9/73
STORAUL steel tank
SOURCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•?IcO € -O LI1LI ‘IA T Y L4 I1
tL IAy;iS IL C &4S 00 LI !E UNL ZS Oil - IllS! qOSED.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* < 005
(0.J5)**
BARIUM (LO)** .05
CADMIUM (O.0I)** .000
CHLORIDE (2b0)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.C5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.3)* .025
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
Cfll_ I flIUl/ 1 CO ri I
0
I)
.p CQ ENOEQ LIMIT “NANTATORi LIMII
ALL V IR S AR! MILLIGRANS P ! LIT!! URIRS! OTIaUI5A MUIRD.
COLIFORMI100 m l
0
0
0
0
0
()
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAl W,\TEP UPPFIES
U.S. FOREST SLRVICC STUDY -
NAM1 01 F0RES Cleveland National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY San Luis Caapground
TREATMENT ch’.orinat ion
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMB WOF M NTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT lID BACTERIOLODICT\L.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN p rvrAR OF OPERATION THAI ODE HArTFHIOLOGICAL.
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1Z
NUMBER OF MONThS LULW iii ACTLRIOLOGICP L LIMITN 01: TIl. o,i w
NOT MET. 2
CHEMICAL QUA..ITY
— OWS r 1AN57 T RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Color, Iron, Turbidity
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
REPURI ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAIIE OF FOPEST Cleveland National Forest DAlI or SUIIVEY 7/16/71
NAME OF SUPPLY Ela k Canyon C.C. STORAGE concrete tank
TREATMENT n ,,ne SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF M HTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPEIIATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGiCAL
StO PLI i S TAKEN. 11
NUMBER 01 MoNTHS D N D 5ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS or DIE UWS
NOT MET. °
CHEMICAL QUALATY
EMS MANLi RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECJMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Color, Iron, Manganese, Total Dissolved
Turbidity Solids
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
IS OPERPTION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Chlorio.e residual should be checked daily and recorded.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES rio
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES 10 —
pH 7.2
SELENIUM (O.01)** 4005
SIL’/EP, (o,05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* 43.
TOTAL DISSOLVED 238.
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*9.o
zinc (5.O)* i: oo
Fr C !’ L
c LIiO ’ i/lOO ml
PHYSICALPTi P CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* (.005
(0. OE )**
BARIUM 1.O)** .13
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* 40.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 30
COPPER (1.G)* .014
R\ ’.J WATER
DISTRIBU1ION ftl
DISTRIOUTION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .20 pH 7.2
2,4) ** SELENIUM (0.O1)** 4oo5
IRON (O.3)* 1.900 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* 71.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 535
MANGANESE (O.O5)* Q i SOLIDS (500)* —
MERCURY . .O0O5 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 21.0
NITRATE (45)* l.0 ZINC (5.O)k
‘RECOMMENDED LIMIT .MMANQATOMY LIMIT
ALT. MALTED ARE MILLIORAIRE PER LITER URLL$S OTNERMIE-E HATED.
FE CA
COLIFORW/100 ml COL1FORH/100 miii
o 0
0 0
DAlI Ol UHVLY 7/16/fl
STORAGE tee1 tank
SOURCE spring
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES
r o
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Tfl)* 005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to .20
(O,05)** 2.4) **
BARIUM (LJ)** <.05 IRON (O.3)* .900
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000 LEAD (O.O5)**
CHLORIDE (25O)* 24. M.B.A.S. (O.5)* .250
CHROMIUM (,35)** .000 MANGANESE (O.05)* .014
COLOR (15 s.u.)* MERCURY < .OO05
COPPER (1.0 1* .000 NITRATE (45)* 1.0
BACTERIOLOLICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRBUTIUN #2
.AECOE’IDTO LIMIT “SMTDAIOAY Li 4IT
ALl. A I.IES MAE ,i I.I RiAE PER LITER WALT 0 OTNIPAIDE HITAM.
COLIFORII/ lOD ml
0
BACTERIOLCGICAL RESULTS
0
0
0
-------
DATI 0; ;UMVL( 7/17/73
S FORAGE redwood tank
SOU 1CE well
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01 )*<.005
BARIUM (L0)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 * 44
CHROMIUM (Q5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (1.O)* .014
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .30 pH 7.2
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.0l)** .005
IRON (O.3)* .060 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (25O) 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* 250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 304.
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .0009 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .2
NITRATE (45)* 25.0 ZINC (5.O)* .570
CC .CED LIMIT M M MORY hilt
ML li SILL i I t LItt Lt OTlEilIt( i r:o.
FE C / iL
LOLIFORII/1CO nl
PHYSICAL A 1D CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.O1)* 4005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (2E0)* 19.
CHROMIUM Q5)** .000
COLOR (15 S.U.)*2
COPPER (1 .C)* .025
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .50 pH
2.4) ** SELENIUM (0.O1)**
IRON (O.3)* .028 SILVER (O.05)**
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)*
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DiSSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .0009 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*
NITRATE (45)* i.o ZINC (S.0)*
• ECOMMEHOtD LIMIT •50?.TORt LIMIT
ALL YiL IE Ait MIhkl RAM UR LITER UNLEU OTHE MIU AOIEO.
FE CA L
COLIFORM/10D ml
REPORT ON I MDIV! DUAL WATER SIIPPLI CS
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
MArIE OF FORESI Cleveland National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Tenaja Station
TREATMENT Chlorination
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER 0 MoNTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 11
NUMSER OF MONTHS IN P ’fl!AR OF OPERATION THAT ONE r,ACIIEIOLOGICAI.
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER (IF MONTHS iiT IH BAC1ERIOLOGICAL LI; .IIT ; O CL D
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL Q LITY
ows N ’ 7T RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY COnDITIONS
IS THE 3OURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Well 1oc ted close to cattle feed area
IS OPEIfiTION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
Chlorine residual not checked daily and recorded. No chlorine
residua in distribution system at time of survey.
IS THE :ATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT F4AJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — no x
System is too close to sources of pollution. Pressure is not
adequate in diatribution system.
REPORT ON INDIVIDuAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Cleveland National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 7/17/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Indian Flats STORAGE underground tank
TREATI’IENT n.ns SOURCE spring
BACTERIOLOGIC’ .L QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION ThAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES UERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN P \ST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE NAS TAKEN. 11
NUMBER OF MONTHS W! r tTACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF ThU. OWS WL E
NOT MET, 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDi .TORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONO1TIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO x
Preijaure not adequate at all points itt the distribution system.
BCTERIOL ( IGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION ifl
DISTRIBUTiON #2
CQLIFOP.H/100 ri
0 0
7.4
O05
.000
40.
207.
.2
1.900
BACTERIOL’)GICAL RESULTS
COLIFORM/100 m l
0 0
0
0
0 0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WTER SUPPI.IES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAIW. OF FOREST Cleveland National Forelt
NAME OF SUPPL’ Oasis Spring
TREATMENT ncne
BACTERIOLOGI CL QUAL ITY
NUM Of MöNTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 12
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAS1 YEAR OF O7ERATION THAT ONE BACTERTOLOGICAI.
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MOMTHS U FrH TBACTLRIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF TIlL UW WLPE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL q JALATY
OWS t. .ANi T RY LIMITS FAILED
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE S’)URCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — 110 x
Collection box not properly sealed. Collection tank vent should
have a qcreen.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
DM1. 01 SURVIY 7/lh/73
S FORAGE underground concrete tank
SOURCE springs
REPORT ON TNDIVIUUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
WADE OF FOREST Cleveland National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 7/18/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Cuispipe System STORAGE concrete tank
TREATMENT none SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
— NUMBER OrM Tri3TN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 12
NUH3ER OL MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT O 1E BACTERIOLOGICAL.
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUNGER ‘JF MOHTHS WTHE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF Tlit. OHS WERL
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
TMS MA 4D T RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES _ _ NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — 110 X
Source protection needs much improvement.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES X HO —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01 )* <.0005
BARIUM l .O) 1 <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** •000
CHLORIDE (250 * 21.
CHROMIUM (.O5) * .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (1 .e)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .10
2.4) **
IRON (D.3)* .090
LEAD (O.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250
MANGANESE (O.D5 .000
MERCURY <.0005
:ITRATE (45)* <1.0
pH 8.2
SELET IUI1 (O.O1)** K. 005
SILVER (O.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* 34.
TOTAL DISSOLVED 259.
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .6
ZIDC ( )* .110
F r
COLII:q;H/1O m l
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
FE CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
.?.it ”S . O LIMIT M5N’)UlO’Y I.I I
NL’. IT I I LLICRI’T P I U? 1? U IUt$S S! ?R1ISC IIEO.
BACTERIOLCGICAL RES’.JI.TS
RAW HATER
DISTRIBUTIOI4 #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFCRM/160 nl
0
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESUL
ARSENIC CO.Ol)* <.005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to .10 pH 7.6
çO.05)** 2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.D1)** .005
BARIUM %1.O)** <.05 IRON (O.3)* .010 SILVER (O.O5)** .000
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000 LEAD (O.OS)** .000 SULFATE (250)* .25.
CHLORIDE (25O)* 13. M.B.A.S. (D.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 216.
CHROMIUM (.o5)** .000 MANGANESE (0.05)* .003 SOLIDS (500)*
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2 MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .1
COPPER (1.0)* .000 NITRATE (45)* 2.0 Z1 C (5.O) .160
. C 5MENOEQ LIMIT • MANDAIQRY LIMIT
MLL ISLIES Aft NILLIGRA T PER LIT UNLESS TIHTRIISE 50515.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
0
0
COLIFORM/100 nil
0
0
0
0
0
-------
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION 1
DISTRIBUTION ?
f [ f AL
COLT FORM/iOU ni
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.0i)*<.005
0. 05)**
BARIUM 1.C)** .10
CADMIUM (D.Gi)** .014
CHLORIDE (250)* 85.
CHROHIUM (.05)** .000
OL07 (15 .u.)* 3
COPPER (1.o ’)* .000
1IG ’I DAlE P
DISTRIBUTION /fl
[ )ISTPTR’JTLOM 2
HATE U SLIRVLY 7/19/73
STORAGE pressure tank
SOURCE well
FE CAL
CGLIFORM/103 nil
REPORT OrPDJVrI!.IWOTFR SN: ’!
U.S. FURESI_SERVICE STIlL?
rir n : (ii FO! IS1 Cleveland National Forest
HARE OF SUPPLY Alpine Station
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
1LUMOL1fl UNTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT 110 DACTERIOLONICAL.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUG3ER 01 MONTHS IN P s fVrAR OF OPERATION [ HAT ORL DACTUDIOLOGICAL
SAMPEE WAS TrH
-------
UATE OF SURVEY 7/20/73
STORAGE underground concrete tank
SOURCE well
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPADLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES x No
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WtTER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES x NO —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.ol)*<.005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to .30
O.O5)** 2.4) **
BARIUM 1.O .10 IROI (O.3)*
CADMiUM (o.ol)** .000 LEAD (O.05)** .020
CHLORID (250)* 56. M.B.A.S. (O.5)k <.250
CHROMIUM ( .O5) .000 MANGANESE (O.05)*.ool
COLOR (lS s.u.)* 3 MERCURY <.0005
COPPER (1O)* .031 U1IRATE (. )* 0.0
pH 7.6
SELENIU 1 (o.oI)**
-------
REPORT ON I MDI VI DUAL . RATE R SUPPLI ES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FORES1—shasta—Trinity National Forest DATE or suRvi:v 7/26/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Stoney Swim and Fawn Camp STORAGE redwood tanks
TREATMENT chlorination SOURCE well
BACTER1OLOGIC L UALITY
NUMBER Orii fl H fN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES iERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAsT YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE GACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WA5 TAKEr:. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS fHEN THE ACTERIOLUGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUAUTY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
LCPLY T ON HD1VI DUf L WATER SHP’I ICS
LLS. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAI!E 01 FOREST_shasta_Trinity National orestDt Tt: OF SURVEY 7/25/73
1AIE OF SUFPLY Antlers STORAGE Underground concrete tank
TP.EIVrMENT Chlorination SOURCE and pressure tank
Lake
BA(:TERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NU r fl ! ) H I PAST YEAR OF OPERATION ThAT NO BACTERIOLOCICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN.
NUMBEr. OF MONTHS IN P htAR OF OPERA IDN THAT O1L BACT !:R1OLOGICAL
SA 1PLE WAS TAYJH.
NUMIjtW O; MONTHS r TITE ACiERIOLORlCAL LIMITI OF TilL UWS WU;.
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS !AN i T RY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron, Manganese
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECIJON ADEQUATE? YES NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? ‘(ES MO
C1 lorina residual not checked daily. No chlorine residual
on day of survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY O
SAFE ..ATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO _
Drain of storage tank should be screened.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10
2.4) **
IRON (O.3)* .024
LEAD (O.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .000
MERCURY .0008
NITRATE (45) <1.0
pH 8.0
SELENIUM (0.O1)** <.005
S.ILVER (O.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* <25.
TOTAL DISSOLVED ‘138.
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.uj*.i
ZIUC (b.O)* .130
PHYSICAL_AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* 4005
0.05 )**
BARIUM 1.0)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.Ol)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)*c10.
CH!NOMIUM (.05)** .000
COLIii (15 s.u.)* 3
CC ’PER (1 .C) .000
BPCTERIOLC3ICAL RESULTS
PA! !J TER
DISTRI LJT ON 1
DIS1 I HTI)N !2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10
2.4) **
IRON (O.3)* .600
LEAD (O.O5)* .000
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* .ç.250
MANGANESE (O.05)*J Q.
MERCURY < . .0005
NITRATE (4C)* < 1.0
pH 7.4
SELENIUM (O.O1)** .005
SILVER (0.O5)* .000
SULFATE (?501* 25.
TOTAL DISSOLVED 65.
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBM7ITY (5 s.uj’ .4
Zfl (rrj)* 1.400
FE CP.L
CDL iFO i /1 CO ru
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO x
Chlorine residual not checked daily.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES X NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01 )* <.005
(0. US )**
BARIUM (1.O)** <‘.05
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.U)* .000
•a COMMENDEO LIMIT • I ANQA1O L!MIT
ALL V UJE A I IILLIGUIIS 1 1tH UNLC O?H!R1 131 MAIm
CDLI FORi4/ 100 m l
0
FECM
COI.IFORM/100 ml
r)
RACC1 ND1O 11141 I •.‘AA,4c4108Y LI’llI
411 V4 4A 4! MI1LIC AMS PAl 11444 U44L1L oi. ’ i .mIsm I4 4Al.
COLIFORrI/100 ml
3
1
0
I
0
(J
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FCREST—Sha.ta —Trinity National Por..t DATE OF SURVEY 7/26/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Pollard Put STORAGE wood tank.
TREATMENT chlorination SOURCE stream
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER 0 MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 6
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IT ACTEI1tOLOCICAL LIMITS OF TUE OWS WIRE
N T MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
R N T Y LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONCITIONS
IS i1 S UR rPR0TECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO
IS OPEI ATI0N AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES MO x
Chlorine residual should be checked daily. No chlorine residual
on day of survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES x NO —
REPC T ON INDIVIDUAL \T 5 PI LIL
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUUY
NAME OF FORF I —Shasta—Trinity National PoreetOATF or simvi:v 7/26/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Lover Salt Creek STORAGE Pressure tank
TREATRENT none SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
tIUMBER OF MONTHS P1 PAST YEAR or OPEP.ATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE? WERE TAKEN. 4
NL#4BE, OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE DACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMIkR OF MONTHS IRN rACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS or TIlE D lS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED tron, Manganese, Zinc
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO
RAW WATER
OrSTRIBUTI )N #1
UISTRII3UTION #2
Fr CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01 )*(. 005
(0. OC )**
BARIUM 1.O)** .12
CADMIUM (O.O1)**.005
CHLORIDE (250)*
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
N/\1 1E OF FORE51 —Shasta—Trinity National ForeatDATE OF SURVEY 7/26/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Pine Cove STORAGE none
TREATMENT none SOURCE handpumped well
BACTERIOLOGI CAL UAL IT ?
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS IT WThE ACTERIOLOG!CAL LIMITS OF ]IIL UWS WELi
NOT MET. 2
CHENI CAL QUA’ . ITY
DWS rIAND T RY LIr1ITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron, Manganese
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Well too close to cracked vault toilet.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUr’PLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF F0PEsr—Shaata—Trinity National Forest I)AT [ OF SURVEY 7/26/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Sims Camp STORAGE Wood tank
TREATMENT C ’ilorination, sand filtration SOURCE Stream
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NIJNBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT MO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 6
NUWBER OF MONTHS IN P VtAR OF OPERATION THAT OWE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS flEN El ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF TIlL DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MAN T RY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Intake too close to campground.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
Chlorine residual should be checked daily. No chlorine
residuil on day of survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE t ATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVErIEIITS? YES 140 —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.C1)*<.005
(0.05 )**
BARIUM 1.0)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 *
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST—Sheata—Trinity National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 7/25/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Salt Creek Swim STORAGE concrete tank
TREATMENT Chlorination, Coagulation, sand SOURCE stream
ana carbon filtration.
BACTERIOLOGICAL UALITY
NUMB N N H N PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WLR [
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MAMDAT RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
REPORT O I IVIi)W W\TCR SUPPLWS
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY —
NAME OF FORES1—Shasta—Trinity National Forest hATE OF SURVEY 7/25/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Baily Cove STORAGE steel tank
TREATMENT chlorination SOURCE stream
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO DJ CTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPEES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN ThtTACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS Oh TIlE DM5 WERE
NOT MET. 3
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDA1 RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE 3OURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Chlorine residual and turbidity levels should be checked daily.
No chlo :ine residuals were present on the day of the survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO x
Chlorine residual not checked daily. No chlorine residual
.on day c’f survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO X
Vent on storage tank should be turned down.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTI N #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to (.10 pH 7.4
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .006 SILVER (0.05)** .019
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* 425.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* (.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 92.
MANGANESE (O.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.) 3
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.o)* .470
FE L
COLIFORM/100 ml
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.JI)* <.005
(O. 05)**
BARIUM l.0)** <.05
CADMIUM (o.Ol)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (l.O)* .000
BACTERI OLOCICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTICN #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to (l0 pH
2.4) ** SELENIUrl (O.ol)**
IRON (O.3)* .012 SILVER (O.05)**
LEAD (D.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)*
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .003 SOLIDS (5GO)*
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*
HITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5(J)k
FE CA L
COLIFORMfIOO ml
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.0l)* 005
(0.03 )**
BARIUM 1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (C.Ol )** .000
CHLORIDE (250)*
-------
REPORT ON IIIOIVIDUGL WATEIt L’PP I HIS
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST—Shasta—Trinity National ForestOAlE OF SURVEY 7125/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Preacher Meadow STORAGE Redwood Tank
TREATMENT ChJor naticn SOURCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL UALITY
nUiL1!iFff1 ON H IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERiOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PA WAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGiCAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS I W 1FtH ’1ACTERIOLOSICAL LIMITS OF THE OHS WERE
NOT NET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MANIJ T RY LIMITS FAILEO
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO
No fencing around leech field
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO ‘
Chlorine reaidual should be checked daily. No chlorine reaidual
on day of survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEN CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE 4PFER WITHOUT NAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO ‘
Preaeute in diatribution syeten not adequate. Source protection
should be improved.
REPORT ON INDIVI5UAL WATER SIJPF’LIE I
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME 01 FOREST—Shasta—Trinity National PorestDAT [ or SURVEY 7/25/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Alpine View STORAGE steel tank
TREATMENT chlorination 1 sand filtration SOURCE stream
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF M NThS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 7
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PASYYEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMBER CF MONTHS WHEN THCDACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE UWS W [ i-.::
NOT MET. 1
CHEMI CAL QUALITY
OHS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
OHS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONCITIONS
flS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — Nor
Stream subject to surface contamination
IS OPEPATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? . YES NO
Chlorine residual should be checked daily. No chlorine residual
in some parts of the distribution system on the day, of the survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY DE
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — nO ___
Overflow on storage tank not screened. Lid on storage tank
is not Light.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01 )*K0o5
(O.O5)
BARIUM (1.O) .o 5
CADMIUM (0.01 )* .OOo
CHLORIDE (26O)*
-------
REPflRT ON INDIVIDUAL RArER suPi’LTIS
1 T FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST—Shasta—Trinity National por..tDATI OF SURVEY 7/24/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Hayden Flat STORAGE redwood tanks
TREATMENT chlorination, sand filtration SOURCE spring
BACTERI OLOGI CAL QUALITY
NU OFPONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO DACTURIOIOCICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 6
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YtAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE DACTEHIOLOCICAL
SAMPLE w4S TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS P!1TTh 1ACTERIOLOGICAL LiriliS or TUL L S WL E
NOT MET. 0 ——
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS AN T5RY LIMITS FAILED Silver
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE 3OURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Surface drainage not controlled above spring
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO x
Chlorine residual should be checked daily. No chlorine residual
in dietribution system on day of survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO X
Overflow of storage tank should be screened. Roof of storage
tank not watertight. Pressure not adequate in distribution
aye tern.
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WAlER SU2PI ILS
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FORESV —Sheets—Trinity National ForestOATE or SURVF:Y 7/24/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Big Bar Csap STORAGE redwood tank.
TREATMENT said filtration SOURCE stream
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALI TV
Nur C1r rM NTT IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO UACTIRIOLOGICAI.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 7
NUMBER O MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE HACTENIOI.OGICAI.
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OL MONTHS Wfl ! ACTERIOLOGICAI. LIMITS OF TIlE DM5 WEPC
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS P ANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS REco:I 1IENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONOjTIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — 110 x
Intake should have sanitary cover
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO X
Overflow on tank ehould be screened. Roof of tank should be
watertight.
PHYSICAL AMP CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01 )*<.005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to .10 pH 7.8
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** ‘OO5
BARIUM (I.o)** i .O5 IRON (Q.3)* .012 SILVER (o.OG)** .000
CADMIUM (O.O1)**.000 LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* 25.
CHLORIDE (250)* 10. M.B.A.S. (05)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 74.
CHROMIUM (.05)**.000 MANGANESE (O.O5)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
COLOR (15 s.u.) 3 MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .1
COPPER (1.O)* .000 NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINc ( jj)* .640
.CrM 4 NDET LIMIT MA OMI UNiT
MLL i LiTi NNE N LLI&RA i ?(M IITTT UN!.U OiI MIISf NOTED.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
FR CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml COLIFO L1/1OD
RAW WATER
DISTR BUTIUN #1 o 0
DISTRIDUTION 2 2
pH 8.0
SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
SILVER (O.O5)** .110
SULFATE (250)*
TOTAL DISSOLVED 387.
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.uj* .2
ZINC (5.0)* 1.020
PHYSICAL AN ’) CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)*<.005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to .20
(o.OS)** 2.4) **
BARIUM (l.o)** .11 IRON (Q.3)* .012
CADMIUM (O.01)**,000 LEAD (O.O5)** .040
CHLORIDE (250)*
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WMI.R SUOPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST —Shasta—Trinity National ForestOATE OF SURVEY 7/24/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Basin Gulch STORAGE wood tank
TREATMENT chlorination SOURCE stream
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF M NTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT MO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 6
NUMBER ‘)F MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS IM fl ACTER1OLOGICAL LIMITS OF TIlE IJWS WERL
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MAN ? RY LIMITS FAILED
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Surfaca source is not protected.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
Chlorine residual should be checked daily.
YES NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES X NO —
REPORT ON Nl)IVT DUAL W TEN SUPPLI ES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST—Shasta—TrinitY National ForestDATF OF SURVEY 7/24/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Big Flat STORAGE redwood tanks
TREATMENT chlorination SOURCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
-TTI iiw T T TlicTN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT HO BACTERIOLODICAI.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN P ’rWAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMOER OF MONTHS NTH! ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS Oi TIlL UWS WERE
NOT MET.
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS I1AN 7 TURY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQIJATE? YES X NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
Chlorine residual not checked daily.
YES — NOX
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES ND X
Roof of storage tank is not watertight.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.U1)* .O05
o.O5) *
BARIUM 1.O)** .10
CADMIUM (0.01 )**000
CHLORIDE (25O)*< 0.
CHROMIUM (.O5)**.000
COLOR (15 .u.)*3
COPPER (LO)* .000
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION fl
DISTRIBUTION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.6
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .012 SILVER (O.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (o, 5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 127.
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 1
NITRATE (45)* I.O ZINC (5.O)* .180
.çQ 5 11511 • NAND TQ 11511
A L t !S A t LGII S P I LITU U51E1$ OIKUIIZ( 501(0.
FECP
COLIFONW/1 00 ml
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)*<.oo5
ço.05)
BARIUM 1.O)** .14
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)*
-------
:r1 T u: IIU)IVI I; f I. WC 11 r JPFI.IES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STULi?
W ME OF FORIST—Shssta—Trinhty National ForastUAll o sir viv 7/24/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Harrison Gulch STORAGE concrete tank
TREATMENT chlorination SOURCE well and spring
BACTERIOLOGI CAL QUALITY
WUMBERrI TIIS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT 1 10 BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION ThAT ONE DACTEHIOLOGICAL
SAMPI.E WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMUER OF MONTHS WET ThrG4CTERIOLOGICAL UNITS OF THE DM5 WERE
NOT MET, 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS WAN! T RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Well is located next to septic tank effluent. Ponding occurs
next to well.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO
Chlorir e residuals ahould be checked daily.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — ItO X
Improved source protection is needed.
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL 1141CR SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAIIE OF FORESTshasts—Trinity National Forest DATE OF SLJJ 1VLV 7/24/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Deerlick Springs STORAGE redwood tank
TREATMENT chlorination SOURCE stream
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER CF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES I ERE TAKEN, 6
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS W rT}Ir ACTERIOLOGICAL LIM1 IS OF TIlL OWS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUAL:TY
DWS MAND T RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOVJIENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Streaa is subject to surface contamination.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
Chlorire residual should be checked daily.
YES_ MDX
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES X NO —
RAW ‘ JATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION / 2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .20 pH 7
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ol)** c,005
IRON (O,3)* IQ SILVER (O.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.05)*k .000 SULFATE (?50)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 215.
MANGANESE (O,05)* .026 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .0010 TURBIDITY (5 s.Li.)* 4.8
NITRATE (45)A <1.0 ZINC (G.o)’ .560
.C EP4UTO LIMIT ‘.MANDA QTT IMU
A L YMlt R I1LC MT LTD UHLTTT OT TMMIT€ ITITT.
FE CAt.
COLIFO?iI/100 ml
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01 )*<,005
(O.05)**
BARIUM (1.O)** Q5
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)*
-------
REPORT__ON INDIVI ) (v:R S’. ’I L [ [
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STULY
NAME 01 FORES —Shaata—Trinity National Fore tDAIL NP SURVEY 7/23/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Jones Valley Boat Ramp STORAGE presaure tank
TREATMENT h1orination SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUH! r rNTrI TN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION ThAT NO I ACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0 (New Syatem)
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAS VAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE I3A TERIOI OCICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMBER CF MONTHS Ht1 Tht ACTCRIOLOGICAL LIMITS or: liii HWS WLRP
NOT MET.
CHEMICAL QUALITY
— OWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Color, Iron, Manganese, Turbidity
SANITARY COMUITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES ? NO
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY —
NAME OF FORES. s _Tri DATE OF SURVEY 7/23/73
NAME CF SUPPLY a rove N ti0fla1 Foreet STORAGE concrete underground tan
TREATMENT c’ lorinition, sand filtration SOURCE stream
BACTERIOLOI3I AL UALITY
NUMBER O M NTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER 01 MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONJHS W IN ffACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF TIlL L)WS WLIIL
NOT MET. _______
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS T Ry LIMITS FAILED
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Manganese
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE 3O IJRCfl’ROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
Chlorine residual not checked daily. No chlorine residual in
dietribu. ion system on day of survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOI.JS SUPPLY OF
SAFE W TER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES x —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
Chlorine residual not checked daily.
Is THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO
Vent on storage tank should be screened.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* .005
O.O5)**
BARIUM 1.0,** <.05
CADMIUM (O.O ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 *
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SuPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST —Shuta—Trinity Natioea l Por.stOATC OF SURVEY 7/23/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Hire Bay Camp STORAGE Concrete tank
TREATMENT sand filtration, ehlotttt ti a SOURCE lake
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NU1IOER OF MONThS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 7
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YtAR OF OPERATION THAI ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN TMrIACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF TUE UWS WERE
NOT MET 0
CHEMICAL QUALiTY
0415 MAN A1 RV LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILEO
SANITARY CONtflTIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTLON ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Chlorine residual not checked daily. No chlorine residual in
distribution system on day of survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO X
Vent on storage tank should be screened. Lid of storage tank
has holes in it.
flU ORi ON IWO! VI DUAL WATER SUPPL I ES
U.S. FOREST SERViCE STUDY
IIA? ’!E OF FOREST_SMsta_Trinity National Forest T SUPVEY 7/23/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Bridge Camp STORAGE steel tank
TREATMENT Chlorination SOURCE stream
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER O MOHTHS tU PAST YEAR OF OPERATION ThAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. g
NUMBER (iF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATiON THAT ONE RACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN.
NUMBER OF MONTHS WRTN TH .ACTERIOLOGICAL LIlIITS OF TIlE UWS WERE
NOT MET. _
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS I A$ ’T RY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
OWS RECOMMENDED L iMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO x
Source is not protected.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO c
Chlorine residuals should be cloecked daily and recorded, Distribution
system inspections should be made often enough to spot cross connections
and leotking pipes.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEI1ENTS? YES NO x
There iq a cross—connection at the leaking pipe joit E A screen
is needed on the storage tank overflow. Source protection needs
improvement. Distribution system pressure was not adequate.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.’il )* <‘O 05
(0. 05 )**
BARIUM 1.O)** <.05
CADMiUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (aso *
-------
DATE OF SURVEY 8/7/73
STORAGE none
SOURCE handpumped well
DATE OF SURVEY 8/16/73
STORAGE spring box
SOURCE spring
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVE IENTS? YES X NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
Chlorine residual showid be checked daily. No chlorine
resiaual in distribution system on day of survey.
IS THS WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO _
Overflow line should be screened.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC(O.C1)* <.005
(0.05) **
BARIUM (1.o)** .09
CADMIUM (0 OI)** .000
CHLORIDE (2 O * <1.
CHROMIUM ( .35)** .000
COLOR ( 5 s.u.)* 5
COPPER (1.3)* .000
PJ\W WT TE R
DISTRIRUTION fri
DI TIU [ iUT!O I /2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .40 pH 7.9
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ofl** (.005
IRON (o.3)* SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.O5)** .000 SULFATE (250)* 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.S) <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 111.
MANGANESE (O.O5)* 9 SOLIDS (50CJ)*
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 5
NITRATE (45)* < 1.0 ZiNC (5.O)* .270
.CO ME DEU ItMI I ..M I MTO T 4M1 I
M.L VMI. i!S t E MIUIIAMMI LITt UNLI15 OT)4tR IIL HII Q
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
FFCAL
COLIFORM/100 nil COLIFORM/100 nil
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST ArapahO National Forest
NAME OF SUPPL” Granella Campground
TREATMENT no°
BACTERIOLOGICAl QUALITY
NUMBER ( F MdNTHcTN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 11
NUMBER CF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. I.
NUMBER OF MONThS HZN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS NA PTAT RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron, Mangar’e e
SANITARY OONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO
REPONT CM INDIVIDIJIiL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Arapaho National Forest
NAME OF SUPPI.Y Echo Lake Campground
TREATMENT manual chlorination
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MOWT {S IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER CF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE DACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUWBER IF MONTHS r fl 1 TnrffACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THL Uws WERE
NOT MET 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DMS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
IS OPEIthTION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES
MO
BAcTERI0LOG:cAL RESULTS
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* < .005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to .20
2.4)
BARIUM (1 O)** <.05 IRON (O.3)* .031
CADMIUM (O.O1)**.000 LEAD (O.O5)** .000
CHLORIDE f250)*
-------
REPOflT ON I OIVIflUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
BACTERIOLOGI CAL QUALITY
NUMB ER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF NONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS ‘vIHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS or THE VMS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUAL iTY
DWS MANiAT RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — MO x
Cattle grazing near source.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WIThOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO X
Storage mnt and overflow should have screens. Source protection
needs improvement. Disinfection unit shduld be installed with
surface sources.
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
MANE OF FOREST Arapaho National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Mizpah Campground
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE EMS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMIC !SUALITY
— EMS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
EMS RECUMI1ENOED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE S U UPR0TECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO a
Surface water not diverted around spring. Overflow and drain
of spring box should be screened.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO
Pressure not adequate at all points in distribution system.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ofl’ 4OO5
0.05 )**
BARIUM 1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.Gfl** .000
CHLORIDE (250)*(lO.
CHROMIUM 05)** .000
COLOR (15 s,u.)*S
COPPER (I .O)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 410 pH
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)
IRON (0.3)* .090 SILVER (O.O5)**
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (25O)
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.O5)*.000 SOLIDS (5OO)
MERCURY ç.OO05 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .4
NITRATE (45)* <‘1.0 ZINC (5.O)* .310
RAW HATER
DISTRIBUT 1ON #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
OISTRIBUTIUU #2
MANE OF FORESF Arapaho Nationsl Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Prospector
TREATMENT nor s
DATE OF SURVEY 818/73
STORAGE Steel underground tank
SOURCE surface
DATE OF SURVEY 8/6/73
STORAGE none
SOURCE spring
NO
PHYSICAL AML CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01 )* <‘.005 FLUORIOE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7 9
(O.O5)** 2.4) ** SELENIUM (0.Ol)** <.005
BARIUM (1.O)** .23 IRON (O.3)* .018 SILVER (o.O5)** .000
CADMIUM (O.01)** .000 LEAD (O.O5)** .000 sULFATE (25O)* 40.
CHLORIDE (25D)* <10. M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 302.
CHROMIUM (.O5)** .000 MANGANESE (O.O5)* .000 SOLIDS C500)*
COLOR (15 s.u4 8 MERCURY < MOOS TURBIOITY (5 s.u4 . 1
COPPER (I.0)* .000 NITRATE (45)* C 1.0 ZINC ( 5 .O)k 3.300
•RECOflENOfl LIMIT • M*MDATRRV LIMIT -
ALl,. YRLU$ ARt RILLIERSIR PER LITER flIRTS ETHIRMISE NOIRE.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
0
7.5
<.005
.000
<25.
76.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
0
0
FECAE.
COLIFORM/100 ml COLIFORN/100 ml
FECA 1 .
COLIFORM/100 ml COLIFORN/100 ml
•RECOJMENOEO Ll%IT “MANDATORy LIMIT
ALL VALUE$ CE AILLIERAME PER tURN UNItER RO S Al IE NOIRE.
0
0
0
0
0
-------
RL!’& TONTNOTVIOUAL_M/TER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STU UY
NAME OF FOREST Arapaho National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Peak One
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACtERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 4
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE HAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS JHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE UWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MANU ?0RY LIMITS FAILED
OWS REC t iMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS ThE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WAFER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FORES 1 Arapaho National Poreat
NAME OF SUPPLY Tenderfoot Mountain
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGI CAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONThS fli PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACrE OIOLOO ICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN; 1
NUMBER OF MONThS IN P AST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMOER OF MONTHS. WHEN THE BACTER1DLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DUS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS NAND T 0RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron, Manganese
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES ‘ NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES x MO
IS OPEPATIOM AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO
Pressure not adequate in all parta of the diatribution aystem.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DEL l VERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WIThOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES ‘ NO —
7.9
<.005
.000
25.
134.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* <‘.005
(D.05)
BARIUM Cl.o** .03
CADMIUM (e.OI)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)*
-------
YES
DATL OF SURVEY 8/16/73
STORACE none
SOURCE spring
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES uO x
Source protection needs improvement.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVENENTS? YES NO —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O. 1)* <.005
O.05)**
BARIUM ]Q ** <.05
CADMIUM (0 .Jl)** .000
CHLORIDE 250)* <10.
CHROMIUM .05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COi’PER (l.J)* .000
RAW lIATER
DISTRIBUTION ,ijl
DICTRIBUTION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **
IRON (Q.3)* .280
LEAD (O.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (Q5)* 4250
MANGANESE (0.05)* .010
MERCURY 40005
NITRATC (45)* <1.0
pH 7.6
SELENIUM (O.01)** <.005
SILVER (O.05)** .ooo
SULFATE (250)* <25.
TOTAL DISSOLVED 80.
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s,u.)* .3
ZINC (5.O) .540
PAL WATER
)IATi It3’IT O I l
9ISTPIP,UT!U L 2
ULIYOR. /1 cr nil
REPO L1 ON IND ! “1 DUAL, RArER SUPPLI ES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STU(Y
NAME OF FOREST Arapaho Nitional Forest DATE OF SURVEY 8/6/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Arapaho Springs STORAGE none
TREATMENT o a SOURCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER CF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN pA fV AR OF OPERATION THAT ONE DACTERTOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS I 1T W 1 ThACTLRIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF JUL. UWS tII.Ut.
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL UALtTY
OWS MANC T RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY C’)r DITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Source too close to road.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? NO
RFP .’T ON 11101 VI DUAL WATER U PL I
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUUY
NAME OF FOREST Arapaho National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Sqaw Paus
TREATMENT nose
BACTERIOLOGI CAL QUALITY
NUMBLR OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT LID BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN P TTrAR OF OPERATION THAT O 1E BACTERIOLOGICAL.
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS WFWR ThE1cACTERIOLOGICAL LINITS 0 fill DWS WE L
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUAI LIV
OWS MANIJATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOUR’t PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES ‘ NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES NO
BACTERIOLOLdCAL RESULTS
.PACO A(NOE0 LI I • .MaNOATO Y LIMIT
ALl. AILIt AlA N L ICIA .$ PEA LULl h ILlEL OTNIIIISE MOTEL.
PHYSiCAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* 4005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.0
0.05)** 2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ol)** 4005
BARIUM 1.O)** <.05 IRON (Q.3)* .130 SILVER (O.05)** .000
CADMIUM (O.Ol)** .000 LEAD (0.O5)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
CHLORIDE ( 5O)* <10. M.B.A.S. (O.5)* (.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 37.
CHROMIUM (.J5)** .000 MANGANESE (O,05)* .000 SOLIUS (5OO)
COLOR ( 5 s.u.)* 3 RERCURY ,.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.) .4
CG ’PER (1.0)* .000 NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.O)k 260.
.AErm IEN Eo LIA1T MANQA1OT LIMiT
ALL. VIL1AT hAt AILLIGMAMT PEA hILT UMLk T CIMIAJISE OUT.
BACTERhOLOGICAL RESULTS
0
rECA L
CULIIORM/100 ml COL1FIWFI/ IOU ml CCLIFORM/100 cii
()
0
0
0
I)
-------
DATE or suRvrY 8/6/73
STORAGE underground Hteel tank
SOURCE stream
REPORT ON INOLVIDUAL WATER SUPMLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
IS OPE1ATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES ‘C NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WAlER WITHOUT MAJ 1R IMPROVEMENTS? YES CO X
Storage tank vent and overflow not screened. Fire truck should
not be used to fill storage tank. Disinfection unit should be
installed with surface sources.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* (.005
(o.O )**
BARIUM (l.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* 23.
CHROMIUM (.O5)** .000
COLOR (15 .u.)* 3
COPPER (l.O)* .000
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* K.005
(O.35)**
BARIUM (1.G) * <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (2b0 * 19.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (IE s u.)* 10
COPPLFi (l.O)’k .000
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW MATER
DISTRIBUTI)N #1
DICTRIBUTION 2
.REcOJ ’d$ ED 1U IT • .s,.NOAyoqy uuIT
.L A UU A ( P( LII( LC O1ut *ICt
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
F V CAL
CULl VORM/100 ml
()
BACTE7JOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW DATE R
DIST i)T OM l
DIS RIBU1ION 2
tCO E CED LI 1IT •. D y Rv 1 4I
LL , L’J S t LLI R&MS P0 llrER QT . ISC MOOD.
COLIFORM/IOO ml
0
F P CAL
CCLI CCM;•1/ 100 i.il
0
0
RLPORT 0”i INDIVIDUAL DATER SUPPLII.S
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Arapaho National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Columbine Campground
TREATMENT Manual chlorination
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN P STVT AR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SN PLE MAS TAKEN. I
NUMBER OF M0NT 1S ( ACTERIOLOGICAL LILIITS OF THE DM5 L;LRE
NOT MET. _______
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONUITIOMS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES ‘C NO —
IS OP&.ATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
Chlorine residual not checked daily. Automatic chlorination
should b employed. Chlorine residual not present in all partS
OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES ‘C NO
NAME OF FOREST Arapaho National Forest DATE OF SURV [ Y 8/6/73
NAME OF SU°PLY Pickle Gulch STORAGE underground steel tank
TREATMENT none SOURCE stream
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NU?IB r goN1 IN PAST ‘(EAR OF OPERATION THAT NO UACTERIOLDGICAI.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN P STV AR OF OPERATION THAT ONE L1ACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS 1 1TI1E 1IACTERIOLOSICAL LINUS OF [ IlL D L; WLCL
NOT MET. 0 —
CHEMICAL QUAL:Ty
DWS !IANDArORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
FLUORIDE (1.4 to<.1O
2.4) **
IRON (O.3)* .150
LEAD (O.O5)** .000
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .003
MECCURY .0012
NITRATL (4F))* <1.0
pH 7.2
SELENIUM (O.Ol)** <.005
SILVER (O.O5)** .000
SULFATE (25O)* ‘ 25.
TOTAL DISSOLVED 92.
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.) .4
ZINC (o.o)* .140
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.3
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ol)** K.°° 5
IRON (O.3)* .460 SILVER (O.O5 ** .000
LEAD (O.O5)** .000 SULFATE (ZSO)* ç25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* .250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 80.
MANGANESE (O.05)* .014 SOLIDS (SOO)*
MERCURY .0009 TUOBIDITY (5 .u.)k .4
NITRATE (4 )* <1.0 ZINC (F.o)* .270
0
0
0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WAlER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAF’IE OF FOREST Arapaho National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Clear Lake Campground
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS III ! PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 4
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAN LE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUNBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DM5 WE. 1C
NOT NEr 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS Mi NOPTORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CO DITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Well seal broken.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES x NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE bAlER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO x
Part of pump has broken off. Stuffing box needs repair.
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL Ui l s n’:’:jis
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUN E OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO UACTERIOLOCICAI.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 12
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN P rwAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE DACTER!OLOGICTIL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN 1’ flThCTERIOLOGIUAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WL E
NOT NET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
0145 RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Sotree is in campground.
IS OPEPATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO
Source protection should be improved.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O,Ol)* .O05
(0.05 )**
BARIUM (1.&)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.Cl)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 S.U.)k .3
COPPER (1.C)* .000
pH 7.6
SELENIUM (O.O1)** <005
SILVER (O.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* <25.
TOTAL DISSOLVED 80.
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u) .3
ZI nC (59)* .540
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (o.O1)* <.005
(O.05)**
BARIUM 1.O) <.05
CADMIUM (G.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE 250)* <10
CHROMIUM .05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (1.O)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.6
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1) * <.005
IRON (O.3)* .160 SILVER (0.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* &25.
M.B.A.S. (Q.5)* J.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 60.
MANGANESE (O.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .0006 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 1.5
NITRATE (45)* < 1.0 ZINC (S.0)k .048
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
•RECOMMENOIO LIMIT ••UAMDA.TORY LIMIT -
ALl. V*LUU M I uII .LIT*AM$ PER LUll LILIES 01111 1 11 01 1 10110.
COLIFORF1/100 ml
1
FE CA L
COLIFORNf100 m l
0
BACTERIOLOGiCAL PSESULTS
RAW WATLR
DISTRIBUT’ON #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
.11 011 11 5m g LIMIT ••5A 5S LIhIT
ALL YALATS Ill IILI.IMRAIS PER LITER AIRLISO GlIltRIlol N)I( .
COLIFOEM/100 nml
0
F CAL
COLIFOR 1/1OO n l
0
DATE OF SURVEY 8/7/73
STORAGE none
SOURCE- Handpumped well
NAME OF FORESI Arapaho National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Cold Springs #2
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SuRVEY
STORAGE none
SOURCE spring
8/6/73
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10
2.4) **
IRON (O.3)* .280
LEAD (O.O5)** .000
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250
MANGANESE (O.05)* .010
MERCURY < .0005
NITRATE (45)* 41.0
-------
• REPORT ON ¶N’fl’JIDUAL W JER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVIcE STUDY
NA iE OF FOREST Roqaevelt National Forest
MANE OF SUPPLY Olive Ridge
TREATMENT nnne
BACTERJOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER CF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAS t YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE W\CTEHIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF IIOHTHS t WTHflACTERIOLOUICAL LIMITS OF THE DM5 WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Fluoride
DWS RECCMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron, Manganese
SANiTARY COIGDITIONS
IS THE S0U tUPROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Well is located 15 feet from sewage diaposal tank. Top of well
is buried, and well has no pitless adapter.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
REPORT ON IrJDtVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Arapaho National Forest BATE OF SURVEY 8/7/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Clear Creek Picnic Area STORAGE underground steel
TREATMENT nanual chlorination SOURCE stream reservoir
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER CF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLDGJCAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER CF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS Wi Tfl1rUACTERIOLOG1CAL LIMITS OF TIlE OHS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMiCAL QUALITY
DWS MAN1IATIJRY LIMITS FAILED
DM5 RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES MO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — ND x
Chlor. 4 .ne residual should be checked daily.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WIThOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO X
Drains from collection box and storage tank should be screened.
The system nms dry twice per week.
PHYSICAl. AND CHEMICAL
ARSEN iC (0.01 )*
-------
DATE OF SURVEY 8/8/73
STORAGE Preseure Tank
SOURCE Spring
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION il 0
OISThI1IUT1OII 0
FLUORIDE (1.4 to<.lO
2.4) **
1RON (O.3)*
LEAD (O.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250
MANGANESE (0.05)* .046
MERCURY .0008
NITRATE (45)* <1.0
pH 7.4
SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
SILVER (o.os)** .000
SULFATE (250)* <25.
TOTAL DISSOLVED 62.
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .6
ZI!ic (b.ri) .500
.CONfl5D D LI IT •.Il*NOATO Y U C l A
A LI. .AIt At LL t A t PU LIlAt WILLIS hUllS wattS.
PHYSI CAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (o.U1)* (.005
0.05)**
BARIUM 1 .0) <.05
CADMIUM (0.01)** .000
CHLORIDE (2S0) (10
CHROMIUM (.Q5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (101* .000
RAW MATER
OISTRIBUTION ft1
DIS1RINUTI ’I I /12
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .30 pH 7.6
2.4) ** SELENIUM (0.O1)** <.005
IRON (0.3)* .036 SiLVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (o ,os)** .000 SULFATE (25O)* 5
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 66.
MANGANESE (O.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .0006 TURCIDITY (5 s.u.)’k .2
NITRATE (45)* 1.0 ZIUC ( 5 .o) ’k .140
)MI •NAIIDATARY LIIhl
ALL VAL !S Alt AILLI PAAS P 5 11 111th UAILSfl IIA I SA 110150.
REPORT ON I U1VI DUAL WATER SIII’PLIES
. 5. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
N/IRE OF FOf*.ST Reoe.velt National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 8/18/ 73
NAME OF SUPPLY Cemp Dick STORAGL pressure tarsi,
TREATMENT chinrinatfon SOURCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER T1T. 1 ’W PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUNdER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS Of TIlE DM5 WERL
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
IMS I4AY4I 1 ’5R ’1 LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Color, Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE I’ROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO x
Surface water runs continuously around spring box.
IS OPERATiON AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Chlorine residual not checked daily.
Chlorine tesidual not present in distribution system.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY Of
SAFE WAlER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES X NO —
REPORT ON tt )IV1DUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAJIE OF FOREST Roosevelt National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Peaceful Valley
TREATMENT Chlorination
BACTERI OLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER 01 M HT T PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAI NO OACTERIOWIICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERrOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN.
NUMBER OF MONTHS W IIE1ACTERIOLOCICAL LIMITS OF THE [ iRS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMVTS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS TIlE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES .. . . ... NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — 140
Chlori,i.e residual not checked daily.
Chl.orin. residuals not present in distribution system.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WIThOUT MAJOR IMPROVEIIENTS? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AN CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)*<.005
(0.05) **
BARIUM (1.o)fr* <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (2 0 *<10.
CHROMIUM (.05 ** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPP II (Lo)* .000
BACTERIOLOGiCAL RESULTS
COLIFORM/100 ml
rErI / A
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
( I
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
FE CAL
COLIFORM/iCO nil cQLIFOC;1/loo ml
0
C)
0
0
-------
RrPDpT ON I FR)! VI DUAl WA I N iP !i IFS
U.S. FOREST SERVICE sTUDY
NAI1E OF FOREST Roosevelt National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Kelly Oahl
TREATMENT Chlorination
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN P7 rvrAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE IFACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMBLR OF MORTHS R t1fl iE ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMI IS OF THE I1WU WIRE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MA UAT RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO x
llol in sanitary seal.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
ChlorinE residuals should be checked daily.
Chlc r1ne residual not present in distribution system.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES X rio
RfPO1!T ON l li ‘I IDU l. W.’\TIN UJPPI II
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Roosevelt National Forest DATE OF S!JRVLY 8/8/73
MAM OF SUPPLY Rainbow Lakes STORAGE pressure tank
TREATIENT Chlorination SOURCE stream
BACTERIOLOG1 CAL QUALITY
NUMBER CF MO NTnrTN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAI NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN.
DUMBER CF MONTHS IN PASYYrAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTLRIOLOUICAL
SAMPLE WrS TAKER. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS L iTZi ThfliACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF tilL OWS WEWE
NOT MET. -
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MA TI T0RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — MO *
Chlorine residual not checked daily.
Chlorine residual not present in all parts of distribution system.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES 1110 —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005
(O. 05)**
BARIUM (1.O)** .13
CADMIUM (O.Ol)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.O5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (I.fl)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .30 pH 8.0
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.o1)** .006
IRON (0.3)* .100 SILVER (O.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.O5)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* / .25O TOTAL DISSOLVED 168.
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .050 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .0015 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 1
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.0) .200
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESIJLTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* (.005
(0.05) **
BARIUM (1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 13
COI EI ! (1 .O)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to<-.l0 pH 7.0
2.4) SELENIUM (O.OI)*a / .005
IRON (O.3)* .780 SILVER (O ,O 5 )k* .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (25O)* c 25.
M.B.AS. (o.s)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 27.
MANGANESE (O ,O5)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY &0005 TUREIDIT’( (5 s.u.)* .1
NITRATE (4 3 )k <1,0 ZINC (.D.0)* 3.800
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUT T ON 112
RAW WATER
DISTRIG!JTION 1
DISTRIBUIION 112
‘C 4ME . C 1 MI1 ..M, 4O ONy 1 MI!
ALL VA,AO Aft MILLIGEAMS PEA LITEA UA’EOO C II , ARISE IS lES.
FE CAN
COLIFORM/1 00 ml COLIFI)FRl/1 00 ml
0 0
0
DATE OF SIJIMJ [ Y 8/7/73
STORAGE pressure tank
SOuRCE well
‘RECOMMENDED LIMIt ‘MAMDMIOAY LEST
AlL VAL IES ARE MIILIDRA N PEA LUtE UlAItSI OTHEREINE ESTEE.
F Cf.’.
COLT FORIF/1 (10 ml COLT FOIGI/ 100 ml
0
0
BRCTERIONSGICAL RESULTS
0
0
-------
PLPUr.T 0 lilY! DIJ.U. t if P If ’
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest 0A1F OF SI UVLY 8/14/73
NAME OF SUPPLV Big Turk.y STORAGE none
TREATMENT none SOURCE handpunp.d veil
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER ir oNTHs IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION ThAT NO McFEOIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. _____
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE DACTERIOLOGICAL
SA 1PLE WAS TAKEN.___________
NUMSER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF DIE DWS WERE
NOT MET. ________
CHEMICAL Q AUTY
DWS tAAN15 T RY LIMITS FAILED Fluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X no —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES 110 —
OEPORT 0 ;9 I fllL L WAil ii ‘ !t’!’L [ I
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Happy Meadows
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NU ! P MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION ThAT NO I3ACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES ERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEW. 3
NUWBLR OF MCI4TIIS I 11!C1Ht1ACTER10LOGICAL LIMIES OF TIhE I1W.S WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS hIAIIDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron, Manganese, Total D s o.lved Solids
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — MO x
No sanitary seal; bolts on casing were loose.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO
Bolta on casing were looee indicating a lack of proper
iseintenance.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO
Sanitaty seal should be improved.
PHYSICAL AMP CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0 O1) <‘.005
0.05) 5*
BARIUM 1 .O)** (.05
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COt.OR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (t.O) .000
RAW tIATER
DISTRIDUTIOth #1
DIST IEUTI3N #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 2.50 pH 7.6
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.( 1)** <.oos
IRON (O.3)* 3.000 SILVER (0.05)5k .000
LEAD (O.O5) .000 SULFATE (25O) / 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5) <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 130.
MANGANESE (O.O5) .043 SOLICS (5O0)
MERCURY .0008 TUR3IDITY (5 s.u.) 2.0
NITRATE (45)5 <1.0 Zf ! (5.O) .170
RAW DATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTIGN #2
FE CP!
COLI FOIIM/ 100 mi
DATE OF
STORAGE
SOURCE
SURVFY 8/14/73
none
handpumped well
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO —
BACTERIOLEGICAL RESULTS
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.O1) <.005
(C .05) **
BARIUM 1.U)** .40
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O) 200
CHROMIUM (.o5) .00
COLOR (15 c.u,)* 3
COPRL1 (1.O)k .076
.,tCC1t 4O O L 4It .5AYI MOPY tOuT
.t . & !3 AuE IL1IkiA’ P0 I P UPLUI *TH IiI*I ?tO.
COLIFORlI/iCO nil
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **
IRON (O.’3)*
LEAD (O.O5)**
M.B.A.S. (O.5)*
MANGANESE (O.O5)
!IFP .CIJRY
NITRATE (45)k
1.50
7.600
.000
.460
.880
.0009
pH 78
SELENIUM (O.O1)** .oos
SILVER (O.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* i o
TOTAL DISSOLVED 1100
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.uj 1.2
zINC (5.O)
FECAL
COLIEURI/100 nil
0 0
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
‘R COMM NDED L MI1 ‘MANOkTO Y LOuIT
ALL V*L IT *H $JLLIG T PJ. LITIP UPuLET; *THLPuIPU NOTIP
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
U
-------
REPORT ON ITU)I VI DUAL WATER SW’PL IES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FO 1ST Pike National Forest
NAME OF SUI’PLY Indian Creek C.mpground
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
Noi rTlu THs IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT rio BACTERIOLOGICA’.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE GACTERIOLOOTCAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMBER 3F MONTIIS Wn NThTr ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF TIlE OWS WI.I E
NOT MET. U
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED — Color, Turbidity
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — 110 x
Overflow and drain pipes should have screens.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SuPPLY OF
SAFE W TER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEWE TS? YES MO X
Drain of storage tank should be screened.
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WAFER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE YU Y
NAr ’IE OF FORESF Pike National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 8/14/73
NAME OF SUPPL( Wildhorn STORAGE none
TREATMENT none SOURCE hendpumped well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUrsER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 5
NUMBER CF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SA 1PLE W S TAKEN. 1
NUMBER Oi MONTHS WHEN THE ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WER
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS IIANJATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECCMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES x NO —
PHYSICAL AN’) CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (G.O1)* .005
O.05)**
BARIUM 1.O)** ,.O5
CADMIUM (C.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 43
COPPER (1.o)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 1.80 pH 7.2
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .090 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* ‘( 25.
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* (.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 81.
MANGANESE (O.05)* .007 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY < .0005TIJRI7IDITY (5 s.u.)* .3
NITRATE (45)* 2.0 ZINC (5.O)* .450
RAW WPTER
DISTRIBUTIUN #1 0
DISTRIBUTION //2 2
(COA E ’ t IM ! •MAAD TONY LIMIT
ALL . . AA( LLI AA 5 PEA LIICE UMLUE OIHEENIAE O1ID.
•TECOMNtMDEO hEAl V • ‘NANDATOEAY LANI I
ALL VALUED AND lLLIGNANS PEA LITEN UNLESS OTHENAIDE NOTED.
FE CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml COLIFORM/100 nil
0 0
DATE OF SURVEY 8/9/fl
STORAGE concrete underground tank
SOURCE spring
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 1.10 pH 7.5
2,4) SELENIUM (O.O1)** .oos
IRON (O.3)* .310 SILVER (U.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.O5)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DiSSOLVED 108.
MANGANESE (O.o5)* .010 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .OO12TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 7.8
NITRATE (45)* l.0 ZINC (5Q)* floo
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)*
(0.05) **
BARIUM
CADMIUM (0.01 **
CHLORIDE 250 *
CHROMIUM .O5)**
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPPER (1.O)R
<.005
<.05
.000
<10.
.000
3
.000
FE CA I.
COLIFOPfu/100 nil COLIFQRU/1O 1 ml
0
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WMTER
DISTRIBUiION #1
OISTRIBUT T ON #2
1
-------
UPITE 01 SURVEY 8113/73
STORAGE ateel tank
SOURCE spring
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR iMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO x
Source protection needs improvement.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE hATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO X
Source protection needs improvement. Pressure is not adequate
in all, parts of the distribution system.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (u.ol)* <‘.005
O.05)**
BARIUM 1 .O)** 4 .O5
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE 250 *< c
CHROMIUM .05 ** .000
COLOR t15 s,u.)* 3
COPPER (1.O)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 2.00 pH 7.4
2.4) ** SELENIUM (0.O1)** <.005
IRON (0.3)* .063 SILVER (O.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 78.
MANGANESE (O.05)* .007 SOLIDS (5O0)
MERCURY .0007 tURBIDITY (5 s.u.) 5
NITRATE (45)* 2.0 ZINC ( .O)* .048
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.O1)* <.005
(0.03 )**
BARIUM (1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.G1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (L(4* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 2.40 pH 7.4
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ol)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .063 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.O5)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 78.
MANGANESE (O.05)* .007 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .0007TURIIIDITY (5 s.u.)* .5
NITRATE (45)* 2.0 ZINC (5.O)* .048
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
.IICGIeILNDjD LIMIT • ‘MAMDATO V UNIT
All. Y*1AU UI MILLIGNINI PU L i i i A$I.UI ATKLUISL SOlID,
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
FE CAL
COLJFORM/100 ml
0
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTiON #2
•AECOMAEAOEO LIMIT •‘MANO*TO Y LISIT -
ALL AAl ,’hiO AlA NILLIORASS P1.1 1111.1 UNLASI OTNEIIISA 50100.
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
FE CA L
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
REPURI RN INDIVIDUAL WATFR SUPPJ IFS
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
MANE OF FORESI Pik. National For.st DATE OF SURVEY 8/13/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Old Springdal. STORAGE moms
TREATMENT lOfl 5 SOURCE spE ing
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OFM NTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. b
NUMBER OM MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER 0 MONIRS WHEN THE 1I ACTERI0LOGICAL LIMITS OF ThL DM5 WEDE
NOT MET.
CHEMICAL QUALITY
— EMS 14ANDATORY LIMITS FAILED - Fluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILEC
SANITARY CONDITIONS
1STHE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Springbox adjacent to road.
IS OPER4TION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO
RE PORT ON I MO! Vi DUAl RAT I P. SUN! 1 1. I ES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Fore.t
NAME OF SUPPLY Painted Rock.
TREATMENT ncne
BACTERI CLOG I CAL QUALITY
— NuMBER or MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMP’ES WERE TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ODE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NU!4 LR OF MONTHS RENT ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF TIlE [ MS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
EMS NAhVP.TORY LIMITS FAILED — Fluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LiMITS FAILED
SANITARY CO :DITION5
IS THE COURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO K
Fen ’ing and surface water control n.êded to prevent Z Et1e —
from grating next to spring and drain standing water around apring.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
-------
REPORT ON !NDT’JI DUAL WATr.H i
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest
NAME OF SU:’PLY Round Mountain C.C.
TREATMENT chlorination
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER O MI)11’Tfl TN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAl.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER O MONTHS IN PJ rV T\R OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS TI ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS NLI1E
NOT MET. 2
CHEMICAL QUALLTY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Vent ho .d partially blocked with a wooden plug.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO _
Chlorine residual not checked daily. No chlorine residual in
distribution system on day of survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELI VERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY O&
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO —
Storage tank not properly vented.
REPORT ON IHOIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SER E DV
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Manitou Park
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGI CAL QUALITY
tiUt3 k OF MIiNTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE Wt .S TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONIJIS WHEN THT CTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE OHS WERE
NOT MET. °
CHEMICAL QUALLTY
DWS I ’ AND TDRY LIMITS FAILED Fluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES —- NO x
Wells need sanitary seal. and screens on the vents.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO x
Cross• connectjons should have been corrected.
IS 1HE MATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — MO X
Cross—connections at cattle feed tank and at a third unused well.
Storage tank vent should be screened.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* <.005
0.05) **
BARIUM 1.O)** .16
CADrIIUI ’ (o.nl)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* 19.
CHROMIUM (,O5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 8
COPPER (1.O)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 1.50 pH 7.8
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.01)** (.005
IRON (Q .3)* .140 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* 140.
M.B.A,S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 376.
MANGANESE (0.05)* .040 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .0010 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*
NITRATE (45)* 1.0 ZINC (5.O)* 2.600
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.O1)*
-------
REPORT on IN )IVT DUAL dATER_SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
RARE OF FOREST Pike National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Blue Mountain Campground
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGIC.L QUALITY
NUI’.dER 0I MOUTHS1N PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMBER JF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Pluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONCITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO x
Surface frainage controlled at spring.
IS OPE, ATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES a NO —
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Wilkerson Pass
TREATMENT Sand and carbon filtration
chlorination
BACTERIOLOGICAL_QUALITY
NU1ICER OF NONTh TN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE DACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 4
NUMBER OF tIONTHS WHEN T ACTERIOLOSICAL LIMITS OF THE OWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDiTIONS
IS THE SO PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES ? i O —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO X
cross..counection in treatment plant.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01 )*(.005
(O.O5)**
BARIUM 1 <.05
CADMIUM (0 .01 )** .000
CHLORIDE (250)*(lO.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 c.u.)* 3
COPPER (i.O)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 2.10 pH 7.8
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .103 SILVER (0.05)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 210.
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .0008 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .2
NITRATE (45)* 3.0 ZINC (5.O)* .200
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (001 )* < .Qo5
(0.O5)**
BARIUM (1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (c.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)*
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
— U.S. FORñT SERVICE STUDY —
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 8/14/73
NAME OF SLFPPLY Spruce Grove Campground STORAGE steel underground tank
TREATMENT none SOURCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN.
NUMBER OF MONTHS WREN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED — Fluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES K NO —
REPORT ON I 1DIYIDUAL WATER SU PLEFS
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Springer Gulch
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUhOEK UrPUHTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATICH 1U&T MO GACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUIIBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE DACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN ilk BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE UWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMLCAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECO I 1MENDED L iMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO x
Overflow should have screen.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES x MO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE.?
YES x MO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO ‘
Pressuro in system not edequate.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? ‘/ES — MO K
Water shortages occur each year.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 4.40 pH 7.6
2.4).** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .280 SILVER (0.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (25O)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (O,5)* C,25O TOTAL D iSSOLVED 126.
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .016 SOLIDS (SOO)*
MERCURY .0012 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.) .i
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (s.o)*
•MECOMMEMOMD LIMI I • MAIIV*tGRY LIMIT
ALL v&LiJI& U I NILLIGIAMS VIA LI I IA 111115$ $IIII$II$( MOTES.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENiC (O.U1)* <.005
(O.OS)**
BARIUM (i .O)** C .Os
CADMIUM (o.ol)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.O5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 13
COPPER (l.O)* . .000
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION fl
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .o pH
2.4) ** SELENIUM (0.O1)**
IRON (O.3)* .037 SILVER (D.O5)**
LEAD (O.O5)** .ooo SULFATE (250)*
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .ooio TURBIDITY (6 s.u.)*
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZThC (s.0)*
•RECOIiIZM $O LI!II1 ••JANTATOIY LIMIT
ALL ALIlIES uo NILLIT!A11O PEE LITER UNLESS OT11EENI N.ITEE.
DATE If SURVEY 8/14/73
STORAGE steel underground tank
SOURCE spring
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* <.oos
(0. 05 ) **
BARIUM (l.0)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* <10.
CHROMIUM ( 05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*.5
COPPER (1.o)* .000
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
FF CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml COLIFORM/100 gi
0 0
7.8
<.005
.000
35.
170.
.8
.056
BACTERIOLOUICAL RESULTS
FE CAL
COLIFOP.MJ100 ml COLIFURH/lOO ml
0 0
0
0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIF’
MANE OF FOREST Pili. $s iøn.1 P.r.us
1tAME O SUPPLY W. en TanIu . c.a ,aw,d
TRSAT PIT
PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO OACTERL0LOGICA .
SAMPIJS WERE TAKEN. I
NUMBER OF MONThS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN, S
NUN ER QV MONTHS W9 N TH 1ACTERIOL0GICAL LIMITS OF Thi DWS W1; L
NOTMET.
CNEM cA . QUAkIIt
I4ANUAT Y LIMITS FAILED
DW$ RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
T r PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO _
Nil In p p I. brokin.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES . _
is THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WIThOUT MA )OR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO —
RV! 1R1 O 1 1 tO V1 U ’ ‘Al. WA1 rR SU ’ ’I. I ES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE SIUUY
NAME Of FOREST Pike Witional Tenser [ lATE OF SURVEY 8/13/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Ptp. Sprinj. STORAGE none
TREATMENT n’n. SOuRCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER Of’ MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO UACTERIOLOCICAE.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE CACTERIOLOCICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMBER G MONTHS WHEN rgrl ’ACTERIOLoGIcAL LIMITS OE THE DWS WLHL
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
S tA i Tö Y LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTiON ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES FIG —
! MYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENiC ),O1)* 4oos
(O.O5)**
BARIUM b.0** .06
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 15
CHROMIUM (.05 ** .000
C0I.OR 15 s,u.)* 8
COPPER (1.O)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 1.20 pH 7.8
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** < 005
IRON (O.3)* 1.2005TLVER (O.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* 42
M.B,A.S. (O,5)* ‘ .250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 260
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .023 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .000BTURIJTDITY (5 s.u.)* .5
NITRATE (45)* 5.0 ZINC ( .O)* .260
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005
(O.05)**
BARIUM (1.O ’”’ .10
CADMIUM (0.0’. ** .000
CHLORIDE ( 5O *<10.
CHROMIUM (.05 ** .000
COLOR (15 ..u.)* 3
COPPER (1.O ’,* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .40 pH 7.8
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.ol)** (.005
IRON (O ,3)* .018 SI1.VER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.05)k* .000 SULFATE (250)* 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <“.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 250.
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .000 SOLIDS (5OO)
MERCURY .0006TURBIDITY (5 .1
NITRATE (45)* 2.0 ZINC (5.O)* .036
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION 12
BACTEi I0LOGICAL RESCLTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTJ’ Nl #2
FE CA L
cOLIre ’ .; /1oo i
0
DATI’ OF SURVEY 8/14/7
STORAGE mona
SOURCE hsndpwsp.d v.11
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X NO
GACTERTC LOGICAL RESULTS
(. lU LISIT
M. . Y ML1 Ut V , tfft4d rD LUll mUgs •IgUIIgI still.
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
FE CAl.
COLIFORM/iCO ml
0
• lLEO L I4;I • ‘M .I AtOt .i ’iIi
ftt 1HL IG5* (5 Pft LIU tN .Et$ t??.&R I3 P DUD.
COLIFORM/100 r’.
0
-------
REPGRT ON It!D1V1IiU/ L WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Goose Creak
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER CF MdNTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAI NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE RAC1ERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS W I T ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE IMS WERE
NOT MEV. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OHS MANO T RY LIMITS FAILED — Fluotide
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE 3OURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO
Well has no ,anitary seal. Well is subject to flooding by
surface water.
IS O1’ERATI ON AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Bolts attached to pump casing need tightening.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO x
Source protection need, improvement.
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WAlER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest
NAME OF St.’PPLY Reservoir Casipground
TREATMENT non.
BACTERI OLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF !I NTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMBER JF MONTHS I T t ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF IFIE I)WS WCUE
NDT MET. 0
CHEMICAL 9UALITY
DWS MANDAT RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO x
Surface c.rainage is not controlled above the spring.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERiNG A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES 140 X
Pressure is not adequate in the distribution system.
Source is not adequate to meet demands.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* <.005
(O.05)**
BARIUM 1 .17
CADMIUM (U.Ol ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 * .
-------
REPORT ON I H)IVI.DUAL W/lTiR SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Thi Crags
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MØNTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTIjS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF Till OWS WERE
NOT MET _________
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCUPROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO x
Stream i . next to trail. Collection box is subject to flooding.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO x
Source protection need. improvement. Disinfection unit should be installed
with surface source..
REPOP.T RD INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST 511 E r
BACTERIOLOGI CAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF M NTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER O : MONTHS IN P \SYV AR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 4
NUMBER DF MON,THS QR’ 1T rTACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE UWS WERE
Nor MET. _______
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED — Fluoride
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMiTS FAILED — Chloride, Total Die o1ved Solids, MSAS
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES HO
Unsani..ary cover on spring box.
IS OPE’LATlON AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES x HO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE PAlER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — HO x
Source protection needs improvement. Pressure i. not adequate
in the distribution system.
PHYSICAL ANt) CHEM ICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* ..0O5
(0 .05
BARIUM 13)** 405
CADMIUM (0.31 ** .000
CHLORIE’E (250 * <;10.
CHROMIUM (.U5 ** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* B
COPPER 1.O)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 1.40 pH 6.7
2,4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.oos
IRON (O.3)* .024 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (25O)* < 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 27.
MANGANESE (QQ5)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY <,000STURBIDITY (5 s.u.) .1
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.O)* .022
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* <.005
0.05 )**
BARIUM 1.O)** .31
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 * 5QQ,
CHROMIUM (.05 ** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (LO)* .048
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 4.00 pH 7.5
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .130 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (0.O5)** .000 SULFATE (250)* .120
M.B.A.S. (Q,5)* 1.100 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.05)* .030 SOLIDS (SOO)*
MERCURY .0010 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .1
NiTRATE (45)* .1 ZINC (5.O) .059
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
BACTERI OLOGI CAL RESULTS
RAW RATER
DISTRIDJTION #1
D 1STRI&JJTIOP #2
LF CAL
CDI I WIlFU/ IC C ml
0
1)
DATE OF SURVI:Y 8/15/73
STOMGE •teel underground tank
SOURCE at ream
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Lone Rook
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SURVEY 8/16/73
STORAGE steel underground tank
SOURCE spring
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES x NO
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
• ICOWMtN tG L NIT ‘MANOAt L N Y
ALL ,Il’lfl AI sILLI AN$ P ft LI U ANL($1 •TAUL1 NA (Q.
COLIFORII/100 nil
0
FE CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
1151? •.5b5DA?On 1041?
ALL ILLItP*45 P04 11104 UMLU% OTIIERSISE $1144.
COLIIORM/1P .O il
0
0
0
0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NN’IE OF FOREST Pike National Foreet
NAME OF SUPPLY Wye
TREATMENT ‘°
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE IThCTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF ThE UWS WERE
NOT MET. - 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED - Fluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO —
REPORT ON INDI VI DuAL WATER SUF 1 PLI ES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUIJY
NAME OF FOREST Pike National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Clyde
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
HUR ER CF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES :ERE TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOI.OGICAL
SAMPLE ‘LAS TAKEN. 2
NU1 ER OF MONJHS WdEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF TIlE DM5 WERE
NOT MET. U
CHEMICAL QUAL T TY
DWS MAND ’T5RY LIMITS FAILED — Fluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
Well does not have a sanitery seal.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES
Bolts connecting the pump to the casing need tightening.
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO X
Pressure is not adequate in the distribution system.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WiTHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO X
Sourcc protection needs improvement.
PHYSICAL A 190 CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.ol)* <.005
0.05) **
BARIUM 1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 * <10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER 1.O)* .041
FLUORIDE (1.4 to !L 29. pH 6.7
2.4) ** SELENIUM (o.O1)** <..005
IRON (Q.3)* .170 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.O5)** .000 SULFATE (25O)* <.25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 31.
MANGANESE (0.O5)* .007 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .3
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.O)* .048
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* <.005
(0.U5)**
BARiUM (LO)** <.05
CADMIUM (3,01)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)* .1O.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER CLO)* .000
FLUORIDE (1 .4 to QQ pH 6.8
2.4) SELENIUM (o.Ol)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .020 SILVER (0.05)** .000
LEAD (o.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 68.
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .0015 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .6
NITRATE (45)* 1.0 ZINC (5.O)* .100
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
RA ! WATER
DISTRIBUTION 1
DISTI IBUTI0N ! 2
FE CAL
COLIFO I/1 00 m l
DATE OF SURVEY 8/15/73
STORAGE steel underground tank
SOURCE Spring
DATE OF SURVEY 8/15/73
STORAGE none
SOURCE Hsndpumped well
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
LU IT “IIANOAIORT LUIT
AU. RAL’JE ARE RILLI EA $ PER LITIR W4LE$S OTRERRISE eTID.
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
FE CAL
COLIFOFIM/100 nil
0
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
• (cc gENDED LIMIT •. R PATOPY 1.1511
ALL *LIE Ill RljLITftA S flR LITER UHLE$A OT,4 A5IEE 131ED.
COLIFORM/IOO i1
0
0
0
-------
RE PORT ON INDIVIDUAL . W \TER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST VICE STUDY
NA!.1E OF FOREST Nantihili National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Ch.oah Point
TREATMENT flOfli
BACTERIOLO$I AL QUALITT
NUMBB F TllS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES %4ERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERAT1ON THAT ONE nncrERIoI.oGIcAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONThS WHEN THIT ACTERIOLOGI CAL LILIITS or rut OW WERE
NOT MET. U
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MANO4 T Y LIMITS FAILED
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
Well is not properly vented and does not hive a sanitary seal
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES ‘
REPORT ON It’IDIVIDIIAL WAT W SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Pike Nationil Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Flat Rock Caapground
TREATMENT nunS
BACTERIOLOGI CAL QUALITY
NUMBER BF ML IT115 IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN T1TrTACTF.RIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE OWS WERE
NOT MET. 0 —
CHEMICAL QUAUTY
UWS MANDAY Y LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED —
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IcTHE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO x
They. is no sanitary sea ]. on th. well.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES ‘ NO —
DATE OF SURVEY 8/9/73
STORAGE •tssl underground tank
SOURCE v.11.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO —
IS THE IATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO
The storage tank vent should be pointed down and screened.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
. OAIMOIO LIIII •.IIA I$TATO!Y LIMIT
AU. MALAIM AMA ALLIIMIAMS P11 LuLl LALLAT LIMLI1IIL 13111.
F V CAL
COLIVORLI/l 00 i1 COLt ror ii 100 ml
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .90 pH 7.4
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* . 630 SILVER (O.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* 250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 78.
MANGANESE (O.05)* .007 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY .OO12TURBIDITV (5 s.u.)* 4.5
NITRATE (45)* l.0 ZINC (5,O)* .230
.IICOMMIND(M LIMIT “MLNAMOMY LIMIT
ALL ALLAh *11 MILUAMAIL PAM LITIM AlLAh 0111* 1111 10 1AM.
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml COLIFORM/100 ml
0 0
0
DATE OF SURVEY 9/13/13
STORAGE Pressure tank
SOURCE W,ll
NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to <. 0 pH 6.7
(O.C5)** 2.4) SELENIUM (0.Ol)** <.005
BARIUM l.O ** <.05 IRON (O.3)* .040 SILVER (0.05)** .000
CADMIUM (O.Ol)** .000 LEAD (O.O5)** .000 SULFATE (250)* ç25.
CHLORIDE (253?*
-------
REPORT ON IND!V1DUAL.WI TER SU2 1’I.IE
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STULJY
NAME OF FOREST Nantahala National Forest OATE OF SURVEY 9/12/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Arrowood CCC/Arrowood Glade STORAGE Underground concrete tanks
TREATMENT none SOURCE Well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
IN PAST YEAR OF OPEPATJON THAT NO CACTEJUOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. ______
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAr EN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF 1HE OHS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
TS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
REPORT ON IWOIVIDUAL WATER SLJPPI.ICG
U.S. FOREST SER T STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Nantahala National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Way&h Ranger Station
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALI TV
NUMBER O M NTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMSER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN.
NUMBER OF MONIHS WR N TH 1ACTERIOLOGI CAL LIMITS OF TUE DIES WERE
NOT MET. U
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DMS MArWAT RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES ‘ NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELI VERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVE IENTS? YES — 110 X
The pressure is not adequate at all parts of the distribution system.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WIThOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO x
Vent on concrete tank should be screened.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005
ço.05)**
BARIUM 1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.Ol)** .000
CHLORIDE 25O * <10.
CHROMIUM .05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPEEE Il.O)* .031
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.4
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** .OO5
IRON (O.3)* .066 SILVER (O.OS)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (25O)* 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISI .OLVED
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .003 SOLIDS (SOO)k 51.
MERCURY .0010 TURBIEJITY (5 s.u.)* .2
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZIOC (5.O) .046
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* <.005
BARIUM
1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* <10
CHROMIUM ( Q5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1 .C)* .025
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.2
2.4) ** SELENIUM (o.ol)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .035 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.025 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)* 78.
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .2
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.O)k 1.300
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTiON #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
•RLCGMMETIOEO LIMIT .M MOA1ORT LIMIT
ALL AAL’IE$ AMA MILLITMAMM CP LITIM IIALMIM ATIIMN ISA MOTEA.
FE CA’.
COLIFORM/100 nil COLIFORM/100 nil
DATE OF SURVEY 9/12/73
STORAGE Concrete and pressure tanks
SOURCE Well
BACTER1O OGICAL RESULTS
.pECi ET, EQ LI I MAIIDATTRY LIMIT
A L A.CT AA AM hILT UMLESI QIIII AITA ILO
COLIFORrI/laO ml
0
0
FE CAL
COLIFORII/100 ml
BACTERIOLOCICAL RESULTS
0
0
1 0
0 0
-------
EPOMT ON I IVIDUtI. w irn I’PLi S
U.S. IOREST SERVICE STUIM
NA 4E OF FOREST Nantahala National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Appletree
TREATMENT Chlorination
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF flIjNTll fli PAST YEAR OF OPERATIOR THAT NO BACrERIOLOG CAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN L’ASTYEP R OF OPERATION THAT ONE GACTCR1OLO CAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. _________
NUMBER OF MONT 8 S I HEIl THE BACTERiOLOGiCAL LIMITS OF THE OWS ULNE
NOT NET. ________
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE NOURCUPROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES ‘ NO
PEPONT ON IIDIVTDUAI. WIVIER SUJ’J’LTE
RESTS R 1 E9ñThY
NAME OF FOREST Nantahala National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Joyce Khmer
TREATMENT tione
BACTERIOLOGI CAL QUALITY
NU 4BERbF NT}l5 IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION TIIAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER O MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE QACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMKE WAS TAKEN. 4
NUMBER O MONTHS WHEN THE1ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DUG WERE
NOT MET. 2
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS 144NDATORY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO X
Spring sNould have a fence around it.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO
IS THE I4ATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO X
Presswe Is not adequate In the distribution system. Screen on
storage tank overflow needs repair.
PHYSICAL AHO CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005
(O.O5)**
BARIUM (LO)** . .O5
CADMIUM (G.Ol ** .000
CHLORIDE (2505* <10.
CHROMIUM ( .Q5)** .000
COLOR (15 .u.)* 3
COPPER (l.O)* .050
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 6.4
2.4) SELENIUM (O.Cl)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .025 SILVER (0.05)** .000
LEAD (o.o5)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <‘25.
M.B.A.S. (0.51* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (0.051* .000 SOLIDS (500)k 19.
I4EPSCURY < .0005 TURBII)ITY (5 s.u.)k .1
NITRATE (45)*
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WAtFN SIJPPLII3
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NArIL 9F FORE5 Nantahala National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Standing Indian Camp
TREATMENT Chlorinator
BACTERIOLOGICAL QuALITY
NiJTitW F fl4 NTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES HERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOlOGICAL
SAMPLE lAS TAKEN. 0
NUMLIER UF MONtHS W rTITET AC1ERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE 1)W WERE
NOT MET ________
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
Chlorine residuals should be checked and recorded daily. No
chlorine residuals In distribution system at time of survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO X
Overflow on reservior should be screened.
kr T ON I P UIJAL LA I
U.S. FO!< T SERVIC’ ,UUY
NAME OF FOPEST Nantahala National Forest
NAME OF ‘J7PLY Tsali Campground
TREAT;’.:MT Chlorine, pressure filter
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUT F2 UiIHrTN PAST YEAR OF OPLRATION THAI NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NU: BER OF r THS IN P1 rAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTI.RIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WA. TA EN. 3
NUIa3E OF MONTHS WHE 1 ThE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE UWS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS IANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDiTIONS
is I U E PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO
ProtecVon is good.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
There was no chlorine residual In the distribution system on the
day of the survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPA3LE OF DELIV [ P I G A COLTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WA ER WITHOUT MAJOR I1lPROVEMEI TS? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005
0.05) **
BARIUM l.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.Ol)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 3.u.)* 3
COPPER (l.O)* .031
RAN WATER
DISTRIBUTiON #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to ç.1O pH 7.2
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ol)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .019 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (25O)* <25.
I1.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)* 37.
MERCURY < .0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.uj* .2
NITRATE (45)* < 1.O ZINC (5.O)* 1.400
‘RECOMMENDED LIMIT •.WANVAIORY LIMIT
ALL YALUZ I.ME LLIERMMS PER LITER URIMU OTHIRRISI NOTED.
PCAL
COLIFORM/1DU ml
O 0
0
PHYSI CAL AND CHEN I CAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.Ol)* <.005
BARIUM 1 .O)** <.05
CADMIUl (o.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* do.
CHROMIUM Q5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.uj* 3
COPPER (l.3)* .038
ROCTERIL ( (ICAL_RESUlTS
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.0
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O .)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .030 SILVER (O.OS);* .000
LEAD (0 .05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* (25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (0.05)* .003 SOLIDS (500)* 35.
MERCURY ç.0005 TUROIUITY (5 s.u.) .2
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.O)* .460
.RrCOMMENOEO LIMIT MANCT NY .IMII
ALL VALITO ANT 1IG A O ?ER LITEN UlIOSU OTHIRNI E HHEO
0 0
0 0
DATE 01 SURVEY 9/12/73
STORAGE Concrete tank
SOURCE Stream
DATE OF SURVEY 9/13/73
STORAGE underground concE’ete tank
SOURCE steam
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
COLIFORM/l0O ml
COt I f 11 00
: 1 5 1 . L:
)IS1 iu: . .2
I I
CO I [ IjUl,’ I
0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S ?bREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Nantahela National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Cllffslde Lake
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE I3ACTtRIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONJHS A W’rRrffACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS 01 THE (MS WERE
NOT MET.
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECCMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron, Zinc
SANITARY COF DITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO X
Vent on well should have screen and electrical wires should be
sealed in the well seal.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES ‘ NO —
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Nantahala National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Cheoah Ranger Station
TREATMENT fl ’fle
BACTERIOLOGICAl. QUALITY
NUMBER OF MoNTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
Nt1 ER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 11
NUMBER OF MONtHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE UWS WENL
NOT MET.
CHEMICAL QUALITY
.AS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
OWS RECOI’V4ENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES ‘ NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WIThOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES MO X
Overflow on reservoir should be screened.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBU1ION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0 Ol)* .O05
(0. 05 ) **
BARIUM l .O) <.05
CADMIUM (O.Cl)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.O5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (1 .O)* .000
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to<.1O
2.4) **
IRON (O.3)* .072
LEAD (O.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250
MANGANESE (D.05)* .012
MERCURY <.0005
NITRATE (45)* < l.O
pH 7.2
SELENIUM (O.Ol)** <.005
SILVER (O.O5)** .000
SULFATE (250)* <25.
TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS (500)* <10
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .2
ZINC (5.O)* .480
FE CAL
tIlL! 10MM/lOU pu
I,
0
DATE OF SURVEY 9/11/73
STORAGE Pressure tank
SOURCE Well
DATE OF SURVEY 9/13/73
STORAGE Underground concrete tank
SOURCE Well
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES *
NO
PHYSICA’. AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.0
(o.05)** 2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ol)** <.005
BARIUM 1.O)** <.05 IRON (O.3)* 2.400 SILVER (O.05)** .000
CADMIUM (0.01)** .000 LEAD (0.O5)** .000 SULFATE (25O)* - 25
CHLORIDE (250)* <10. M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
CHROMIUM (.O5)** .000 MANGANESE (O.05)* .044 SOLIDS (500)* 24
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 8 MERCURY .0008 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 1.8
COPPER (l.O)* .020 NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.O)* 10.0
.ft co II NDtO Lt It ••MANlATO* 1I IT
*1.1. VALVU A1 V I ISVVVV P11 LitC.I U I IINIIUISI PIOV IL
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
FE CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
C
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
BACTERIOLCGICAL RESULTS
liCOV CMOED flppp •.M*$IIATOPIY L 4IT
ALL VAUJtS All VILLIAIAVI P C ! 1110 WILLIA OlIllIulIl 01110.
COLIFOP.M/!OO ml
0
0
C
-------
REPORT ON NOl VI DUAL L TE R SI ‘ ‘l I [ S
U .S. FOREST SERVICE STUO’ (
NAIIE OF FOR’ T Nantahala National Forest
N.4ME OF SUPPLY Cable Cove
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOG1 CAL QUALITY
NU1 1 NT TN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACIEWIOLIGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN P TYEAR OF OPERATION mM ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
NUMBER CF MONTHS W1 [ WiT ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF FOE UWS wl:RE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS t IAN 1 RY LIMITS FAILED
OWS RECCMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WIITER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE TUb
NAME OF FOREST Nantahala National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Snowbird
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUM3ER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACFERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN P vSTvrAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BAcrERIOLOGIcAL
SAMPLE CAS TAKEN. 2
NWBER OF MONThS irrHr ACTERIoLOGICAL LIMITS OF ml: OWS IIEUE
NOT MET. _______
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MARIWI RY LIMITS FAILED
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — ? NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES x NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELI VERIFIG A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES x MO
PHYSICAL ANC CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Oi)* <‘.005
O. 05)**
BARIUM LO)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.Ol)** .000
CHLORIDE (2 O)*<1O.
CHROMIUM ( .o )** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (l.O)* .006
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAU WAFER
1)1 ITP 110111011 1
IJISTUUU1IIOR II?
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 6.4
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** (.005
IRON (O,3)* 1.200 SILVER (O.05)k* .00 1)
LEAD (O.o5)** .00W SULFATE (? O)* 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.S)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.05)* .029 SOLIDS (500)* 22.
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.uj* .4
NITRATE C45)*
-------
REPO f CH INI)! VI BOAt. WATER SUPPI. IFS
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Pisgah National Forest DATr 01 SURVEY 91)0/73
NAME OF St’PPLY North Mills River STORAGE Underground concrete tank
TREATMENT Sand filtration, chlorination SOURCE Lake
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER CF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THFIF NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS III PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS NW ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OL OlE DM5 WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO
IS OP R, ITION AND CONTROl. .ADEOUATE? YES NO X
Chlorine residual Should be checked and recorded dafly No —
chlor1; e residual In distribution system on the day of the
Survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES HO —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0 Ol) ’ <.005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 6.6
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ol)** <.005
BARIUM (l.o)** <.05 IRON (Q 3)* .062 SILVER (O.O5)** .000
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000 LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* (25.
CHLORIDE ‘250 * <10. M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
CHROMIUM .O5 ** .000 MANGANESE (O.O5)* .000 SOLIDS (500)* 26.
COLOR (l& s.u.)* 6 MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s,u,)* .3
COPPER (1.O)* .013 NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.O)* .270
REPORT ON IHOIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUOY
NAIIE OF FOREST Plsgeh National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Lake Powhatan
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAl. QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 4
NUMBER OF MONTHS iN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 7
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN TI ! ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF TIlE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DW5 RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
iS THE SOURCUPROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO x
There is a cross connection to an unsafe spring box.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to < .1O pH 7.0
(Q . 05)** 2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
BARIUM (1.O)** <.05 IRON (0.3)* .130 SILVER (O.05)** .000
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000 LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* /25.
CHLORIDE (250 * <10. M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
CHROMIUM (.05 ** .000 MANGANESE (O.O5)* .010 SOLIDS (sOo)* 78.
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2 MERCURY .0007 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .7
COPPER (1.O)* .007 NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.O)* 2.240
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRICUTION #2
•NECOMM!N RO LIMIT ••M&NOATONT UNIT
.LL ALU1 M I&L,ER $ MN LIIAR UNiIAT OTWTINI C NTTfi .
COLIFORM/lOO ml
0
0
F CAL
COLIFOP.M/100 ru
0
0
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
•N(CMNMTNDED LIMIT ••MANDATORY LIMIT
ALL YML IRR ARE NILLIGRART PER LITER UNLEEM OIT4IPRIEE MUTER.
COLIFORN/100 ml
0
IF ( ‘AL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
DATE OF SURVEY 9/10/73
STORAGE Underground concrete tank
SOURCE Well
NO
0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SEWVICE STUDY
NAME OF FO IEST Plsgah National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Vanhook Campground
TREATMENT chlorination
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUI WOF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR 01 OPERATION THAT NO BACTEPIOLGcICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER O MONTHS IN P7\ TY AR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTEIUOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 6
NUMBER OR MONTHS c i i N H ACTLRIOLOGICAI. LI11ITS OF THE UWS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
owS t1ANOJ TORY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Plsgah National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Sycamore Flats
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGI CAL QU ALITY
NUMBER CF M N1HS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE W S TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
D 14 T0RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Zinc
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES MO X
Chlorine residual should be checked and recorded daily. No chlorine
residual was found In the distribution system on the day of the survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES X Q —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O,Ol)* <.005
0.05 )**
BARIUM <.05
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (l.O)* .013
RAW MATER
DISTRIBUTION ill
DISTRIBUTON #2
•p CO E OtD LI 4IT . .M(NVATORY Luill
LL V L iZ ARE A11LILRAA EA I!(R W I.ES$ OTAERAISE HOTIO.
REGAL
COLIFORM/100 ml COLIFOR i/lOO ml
PHYSICAL ANO CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.01)* .<.005
(O.05)**
BARIUM (l.o)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.O1)** .000
CHLORIDE (a5O)* <10.
CHROMIUM (.O5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (1.O)* .003
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 6.8
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** 005
IRON (O.3)* .241) SILVER (O.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.O5)** .000 SULFATE (25O)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.05)* .007 SOLIDS (500)* 75.
MERCURY .0006 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 3
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (D.O)* 8.300
.R COUM(NmO LENET •.NA 4OkTOAY UNIT
*LL AAL J ARE NILLIGRANS PAR LITU w$LA TTHERIITE NOTED.
FE CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml COLIFORM/lOl) ml
DATE OF SURVEY 9111/73
STORAGE Underground con re e tank
SOURCE Spring
DATE OF SURVEY 9/10/73
STORAGE Pressure tank
SOURCE Well
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES x NO —
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .io pH 6.8
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .074 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* < 25O.TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)* 24.
MERCURY .0007 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .2
NITRATE (45)* 1.O ZINC (S.o)* .100
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
0
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
0
0
0
0
7
0
-------
REPORT ON tNDi .I UAL WATh SLIPPLIE..
U.S. FORES1 SLRVICC T j
NAME OF FOREST Plsgah National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Pisgah Ranger Station
TR ATMENT None
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
1lQ? 1 F N’fl TTh PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGiCAL
SAMP .ES WERE TAKEN. 4
NU&SER OF MONThS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION ThAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 7
NUMBER OF MONTHS WH!k T [ IACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE OWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
EMS HAN T RY LIMITS FAILED Bacterlolog’cal Standard
DWS RELOMfiE DEO LInuS F,%ILED Zinc
SANITARY C01 0ITICNS
ThE sOjI rPRoTECT ION ADEQUATE? YES NO X
Well has no sanitary seal, no screen on vent, —
and Is In a flooded well pit.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES X NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLF OF DELI V H1 S A CONT1LU0U SUPPLY QE
SAFE WATER WITUOUT MAJOR IRPROVEMENTS? YES HO A
Storage tank overflow should be screened.
Source protection needs improvement.
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST PisgaN Metl*nal Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Coon Tree Creek
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL Q ) A4JTY
NUMBER oF1 wrH IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 4
NLI1BER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 8
NUMBER OF MONDIS WHEN Th! ACTER1OLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. u
CHEMICALQUALITY
LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS MILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE souR rPRoTECTIoN AOEQUATE? YES NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES X o —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMIC I. RESULTS
ARSENIC (O,O1)* <005
(O.fl3 **
BARIUM 1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.Ol) .000
CHLORIDE (250)* 1O
CUROIiIC’ (,05)** .000
CCLOR (1 su)* 3
COPPER (1.O) .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pM 6.8
2.4) ** SELEUIUM (o .O1)** (.005
IROII (O. )* .032 SILVIR (O.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* < 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANW.UESE (O.05)* .007 SOlIDS (500)* 36.
MERCURY .,OOO5 TURLIrilTY (S s.u.) .1
NITRATE (45)* (1.0 ZIMC (5.O)* 17.0
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.31)* <.005
BARIUM (L0)** <.05
CADMIUN (O.Ol)** .000
CHLORIDE (2S0)*<10.
CHROMIUM (.o5)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (LO)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to (10 pH 7.0
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** (.005
IRON (O.3)* .019 SILVER (o.05)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (25O)* < 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)* 59.
MERCURY .0009 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .7
NITRATE (45)* <1,0 ZINC (5.O)* .094
CACTERiOLO’ ICAL R SUL S
1 t i ! 1
15 z’. u 2
•RtCO CNit L t ‘.,A’ , 4i A L4MPI
ALL A’E *( L ? ’ U ,L( I S ASSISt KOIU.
CGLI1OR /1OC) rU
Confluent Growth with Co1ifor
0
FE CAL
coj,o. /Io ri 1
0
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION 2
LIMIT • .MAM ATOSi LIMIT
ALL VALASI ASS IlLLIASA S PAM LI lA! WILlIS OTHIUIII VAlID,
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
FE CAL
COLIFORM/ 100 ml
DATE OF SURVEY 9/11/73
STORAGE Underqround Contrete Tank
SOURCE wI’l
DATE OF SURVEY 9/10/73
STORAGE Underground concrete tank
SOURCE Well
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO
0
0
0
-------
REPORT ON IMDIVJJUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
Plsgah National Forest
Cradle of Forestry
filtration, chlorination
.COEP E LIMIT ..AAp DAT Ry LIMIT
A VA JI AMA MILL GAAM3 PER LITER v LtAS O ,I$ AOIEO.
FE CAL
C0LIFQ Mfl00 ml
PHYSICAL ND_CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005
(0 .03) *
BARIUM l.O) * (.05
CADMIUM (0 O1)** .000
COLORIDE 25O)* (10
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 u)* 3
COPPER (1 ,O)* .020
BACTERIOtOUICIL
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .10 pH 6.6
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ol)** ( .005
IRON (Q.3)* .025 SILVER (O.OD)** .000
LEAD (O,05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* < 25.
MB.A.S. (O5) <.250 TOTAL DIESOLVED
MANGANESE (Q.O5)* .000 SOLIDS (500)* 19.
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .2
NITRATE (45)*
-------
DATE OF CURVEY 9/11/73
STORAGE Underground concrete tank
SOURCE Wells
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X NO
IS OPERATiON AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINIJOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES x DO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPA LC OF UELIVCRIi G A CONTIDUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR WPROVEMENTS? YES MO X
Standby well is flooded and cross-connected to system.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005
BARIUM o)** ..O5
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 * <10.
CHROMIUM (.05 ** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)’k 8
COPPER (LO)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to , 5 pH 7.2
2,4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .370 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (0.05)* .046 SOLIDS (soo)* 92.
MERCURY < .0005 TURGIDITY (5 s.u.)* 3.8
NITRATE (45)* <.1.0 ZINC (5.O)* 17.5
PHYSICAL A.VD CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* <.005
O.OS)**
GARIUM LO)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.o1)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)
CIIROf1IUM (.O5)** .000
COLOR (15
COPPER (1 .e)* .007
FLUORiDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 6.2
2.4) ** SELEDIUM (O.c)** .Ofl5
IRON (O,3)* .074 SILVER (O.O5) * .000
LEAD (O.O5)** .000 SULFATL (25O)* K25.
14.B.A.5. (Q.5)* <.250 TOTAL L’ISSOLVED
MANGAnESE (O.05)* .007 SOLIDS (EOO)* 29.
MENCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.uj* .1
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5Q)* .610
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTP ,IBIJTION #2
RICOIP4 C jt4IT U4I1
LI. ‘.JU Alt UI II Lull UNLIUS OUIULAJII( UIItO.
COLIFORIi/lOO ml
FE CAL
cOLirorDI/loo
MPCTERIOL OICAL RESULTS
WI ’’ m•n
IST : .JrIO 1
1SlI J1 L : •, ‘
•‘AEUIDEO II U •ANDA!UlY JIlT
AI.L AUIUtU All PILL ILP A IIS UtU LITIA UP All UTPElWI$t MCIII.
CDI IFORM,’ QU ni
Collfluent Growth with co1j’o ’,
El CAL
COL1fOf /1OO ml
0
0
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SU 0 PLIIS
U .S. TO ST V!CE Y Y
NAME OF FOREST Ch&ttahooche. Net 1 l Forest DATE OF SIJRVLY 9/19/73
11AM! OF SUPPLY Mulk.y STORAGE non.
TREATMENT flOfli SOURCE Handpumped well
BACTERZOLOGI CAL QUAL I TV
NUMBZW V1 U?W 1N PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO FIACTERIOLODICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 10
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE IlACTERIOLOCICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONThS W !WTHE1ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE UWS WED
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS t AN AT Y LIMITS FAILED
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron, Zinc
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION AOEQUATE? YES X NO
WEPCI’, N INCI WATEU u;nLIES
Ii, 5. FOW 1 VI CE 5I 1It !
DAME or FOREST Pisgah National Forest
NAME OF SUPPLY Schenck Job Corps Canter
TREATMEN1 twine
L&4CTERIOLIJCJCAL_QUALITY
NU143rkDv MNTh TN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO L3ACTERIO OGICAL
SAMPLES ‘ EPE TAYEN. 2
NU!W3IR O MONTIS ID PA 1 YEAR OF OPERATION THAT 0 1 Jt DACTERIOLOSICAL
SAMPLE AS 1AK U. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS cIHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS P BY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIDITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITI”(S
- I THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES MO x
Standby well drain is clogged and well Is flooded.
0
0
-------
REPORT Oil IIIDTVIDUAL WA1FR SUPPLIES
U.S. F01TI S1_SERVICE STUuY
FIAM [ oi FOREST Chattahoochee National Forest DATE 01 SURVEY 9/1 7)73
NAME OF SUPPLY Lake Russell STURAUE none
TREATMENT noie SOURCE handpumped well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NW4 GFM NTHS IN PAST YEAR 01 OPERATION THAT MO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN.
NUNDEP OF MONTHS IN P T TAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN.
NUMBER OF MONThS QR 1TT fl ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF TIlE UWS WLRE
NOT MET. °
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Bacterloloqical Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Zinc
SANITARY CONDITIONS
— IS THE GOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X MO
YES NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO
REPORT Oil INDIVIDUAL W TER -UPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Chattahoochee National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 9/19/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Cooper Creek STORAGE Undergr 8 rete
TREATMENT none SOURCE Spring r
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUM !FOF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN.
NUMBER OF MONJHS !NTH 1ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. ______
CHEMICAL QUALm
DWS MAIiOATORY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NOX
Overflow on spring should b screened.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO x
Overflow on reservoir should be Screened.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* < ‘.005
(O.05)**
BARIUM (1.O) * <.05
CADMIUM (O.Ol)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)*
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDu L WATER SUPPLIES
— U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUUY
NAME OF FORESt Chattehoochee National Forest DATI. or SURVEY 9/17/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Soquee STORAGE none
TREATMENT none SOURCE handpumped well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 11
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PASryrAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WPS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS Wl1 N t TACTERIOLOSICAL LIMITS OF THE UWS WI. E
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Color, Iron, Manganese, Turbidity
Zinc
SANI TARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO —
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WAlER SUPPLIES
U.S. raREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Chattahoochee National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 9/17/78
NAME OF SUPPLY Tallulah River STORAGE none
TREATMENT none SOURCE handpumped well
BACTERIOLOGI CAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 11
NL%4BER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER O MONTI S WHEN mr!ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMTS OF THE DWS WIRE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOI4IENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS WE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WAtER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEIIENTS? YES X NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM cAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WELTER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)*< O.OO5
(O. 05)**
BARIUM l.O)** <0.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** 0.00
CHLORIDE 250 *< Q
CHROMIUM .05 ** 0.000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*7BO
COPPER (1.O)* O25
BACTERIOLOGICAl. RESULTS
RAW WAfER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION 2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to< .O.1 pH 7.1
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.01)** 0.0O5
IRON (O.3)* 10.0 SILVER (O.O5)** 0.00
LEAD (O.05)** TUO SULFATE (250)* <25
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <..25 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.O5)* 0.12 SOLIDS (500)* 67
MERCURY TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 75 .O
NITRATE (45jk <1 ZINC (5o)
fC LD LIMIT . .AU TORV LIMIT
L. I.’ .T All MILLIGMIAT IT t 11111 UIILATI A iA*I l Ai!l I
FE CAl.
COLIFOR1/lOO nil
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0. fl)* .OO5
BARIUM (l.o)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 *A1
CHROMIUM (.05 ** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 7
COPPER (1 .O)* .012
BACTERIOLOCICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUrION #2
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.2
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.01)** /.0O5
IRON (0.3)* .350 SILVER (0.O5)** .ooo
LEAD (O.05)** SULFATE (25O)* ‘ 25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* ‘.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .009 SOLIDS (500)* 49.
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*2.0
NITRATE (45)* ZINC (5.0)* .220
MICQMMENDtO LIMIT . .M NOATOM! LIMIT
ALL AllAh AIM MILLIGMAMA P CI LlAMA UALIU Otlililil NATAl.
FE CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
YES X NO
COLIFORM/lOG ru
COLIFORM/lO0 ml
5 0
0
0
-------
ac c_ V QuA 1ATfj UPPLji6
U OR
wvw o i i T ChettehQo hee t1,t1or e1 Fare t NATE 1W SLJNVI Y 9/18/73
KANE o su r Andrwt Cove 5IORANL nonv
TATI4CNT OflC SOURCE fl dpumpad well
OQAUTY
NUMN Ik or MUNfliS IN PASt YEAR OP OPERATION hIM NO UACTCflIOLOGL CAL
SAMPLES t ERE TAKEN,
NUMUER Or MONTHS IN J’\ TVT ’AR OF OPERATION THAT ONE UACTERIOLOOICAL
SANPLF WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER QR MONthS I4t1EN THrTAcTLRIOLOUIcAL LIMITS 01 ThE DWS WE
NOT MET.
çHEM CA OUALUr
IiP NUAT0RY UNITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY COMOITIONS
IS T11 Ou CE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUUY
NAME OF FOREST Chattahoochee National Forest DATE Of SURVEY 9/19/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Morganton Point STORAGE Underground concrete tank
TREATMENT SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER CF MdNTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEW’THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUAL:TY
DWS MANI T RY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONUITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES ? NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES MO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES x NO —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005
BARIUM (1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 *
-------
REr ORT ON !ND VIOUAL WAtER SUPPLIES
U .S. FQRES ER T 1YUb
NMIE OF FOREST CMttahooch National Forest DM1 O SUR.EY 9/18/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Anne Rubs Falls STOWAGE none
TREATMENT nona SOURCE 4sndDumpsd well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QiJALI TY
NUMBER OF M )1ThSTN PAST YEAR OF OP 1tATIO 1 THAT NO RACTERIOLOOTCAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 11
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST Y R OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TANEN, 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE OACTERIOLO01CAL LIDhTS OF nit DWS wJ.:
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL_QUALITY
0W5 Nb T RT1 LIMITS FAILFO Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
Hand2urnp is loose in concrete seal
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X rio
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A COITIIWOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVERENTS? YES NO —
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Chattahoochee National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 9/18/73
NAME OF SUPPLY DeSoto Falls STORAGE Underground concrete tank
TREATMENT Chlorination SOURCE Spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
r4U 7
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPL!E
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Chattahoochee National Forest DATF Q) SURVEY 9/19/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Frank Gross STORAGE none
TREATMENT none SOURCE handpumped well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 9
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE OWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron, Zinc
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE bURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE DY
NAME OF FOREST Chattahoochee National Forest DATE OF SUPVLY 9/18/73
NAME QF SUPPLY Dockery Lake STORAGE none
TREATMENT no,e SOURCE handpumped well
BACTER1OLOGIC L QUALITY
T 3• oflTc5 iTfl TN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO HACTER1OLO ICAI,.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 10
NUi1B R OF MONTHS IN P ’1VrAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SA ’IPI.E WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS rT ir ACTERIOLoGICAL LIMITS OF THE DOS WL E
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
Dws MANDATORY LIMITS FAI LED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIO iS
IS TWE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES x NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEI1ENTS? YES X NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ofl* <.005
(O.O5)**
BARIUM (i.o** <.05
CADMIUM (O.Ol)** .000
CHLORIDE 5O)* <10.
CHROMIUM .05)** .000
COLOR (15 .u.)* 2
COPPER (1.O)* .018
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.0
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .940 SILVER (o.05)** .000
LEAD (O.O5)** O U SULFATE (250)* /25.
M.B.A.S. (O,5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.05)* .033 SOLIDS (500)* 58.
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 1.8
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.o)* 120
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.01)* <.005
(0.05) **
BARIUM l.G)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE 25O * <10.
CHROMIUM ( .05 ** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)k 3
COPPER (1.O)* .038
FLUORIDE (1.4 to 1O pH 7.4
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ol)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .190 SILVER (O.O5)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* (25.
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.05)* .006 SOLIDS (500)* 62.
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)k .4
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.o)* .550
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
RAW WATER
DISTRIBU ION #1
DISTRIBUTiON #2
.R(COJ *E O(O LIMIT •.NANDATOR tIMIT
N.L VALUES ATE MItLIGRAMS PE LITER URLESE OTIIE ,1IS€ *5 1(0.
FE CAL
COLIFORM/lOO nil COLIFORM/lOO ml
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•TICOVV(NOED LIMIT MAAIOATOTY LIMIT
ALt. VAL JES ATE LIIGAAIT PAM LITER UNLESS OTIICUISE MOTES.
COLIFORM/100 ml
Fr CA’
CDL I FD M/ 100 ml
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
0 0
0
0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE ‘ YUbv
MANE OP FOREST Chattihoochei National ForntOATF OF SURVCY 9/19/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Lake Blue Ridge STORAGE Underground concrete tank
TREATMENT fl° e SOuRcE Wsfl
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF M NTKSTN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 3
NUM8ER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAM LE WAS TAKEN. Z
NUMBER OF MON ’ [ HS WHEN THE 1ACTERIOLOGIcAL LIMITS OF THE DWS UCRE
NOT MET. U
CHEMICAL QUALITY
o rMANoAToRv LIMITS FAILED
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
— IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES ? NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES ‘C NO —
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUMPLIE
U.S. FOREST SERVICE sT J v -
NAI1E OF IOREST Chattahoochee National Forest DATC OF SURVEY 9/19/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Deep Hole STORAGE none
TREATMENT flOfli SOURCE handpurnped well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MclN1 }1S IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAI NO MCTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES HERE TAKEN. 9
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION ThAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAl.
SAMPLE WAS TAKEU. 3
NUMBER OF MOtjTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LII ITS OF TIlE OHS WERE
NOTMET. _____
CHEMICAL QUALITY
ows MANTJATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECO QIENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron, Manganese, Zinc
SANITARY CONDITIONS
5 THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES ‘C NO —
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WIThOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES ‘C MO —
PHYSICAL ANL) CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.O1)* <.005
(D.05)**
BARIUM l.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 *
-------
REPORT ON I!UMVIDU L_WATER SUPPI IL
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NA1IE OF FOREST Chattahoochee National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 9/17/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Rabon Beach Campground STORAGE underground concrete tank
TREATMENT chlorination SOURCE Stream
BACTERIOLOGICIt QUALITY
NU 1ff WTJF MdNTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO CACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 4
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SA PLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTFjS l 1TEN T E ACTERIOLOGICAL LINITS OF OIL OWS WLNE
NOT MET. ________
CHEMICAL QUALITY
OWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
OWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
No chlorine residual is ever found in the distribution system
dispite daily checks of the chlorinator.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES X no
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF FOREST Chattahoochea National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 9/17/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Panther Creek STORAGE oo
TREATMENT none SOURCE handpumped well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 11
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUNBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE OWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DI4S MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMIJS FAILED Iron, Zinc
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES x NO —
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Gl)* <.005
O.05)**
BARIUM 1.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (O.Ol)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)*
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SEMVICE STUDY
NAME OF FORES1 Chattahoochee National Forest DAlI: 0 SURVEY 9/18/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Waters Creek STORAGE none
TREATMENT flOflC SOURCE flandpumped well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUi43ER O MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO DAC1ERIOLOOICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 9
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN P.A$T YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE UAS TAKEN.
NUMBER OF MUNJHS WEI1 THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF OIL UWS WERE
NOT MET. U
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Bacteriological Standard
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Color, Iron, Manganese, Turbidity
SANITARY CONr,ITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO X
Stuffliig box leaks badly.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
Repair needed on handpump.
YES NO X
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — NO x
Source protection needs improvement.
REPORT CM INDIVIDUAL WAlER SIJP LI [ .S
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
NAJIE OF FOREST Chattahoochee National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 9/18/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Brasstown Bald STORAGE Multiple tanks
TREATMENT ‘ °fl SOURCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 11
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE W. S TAKEN. 1
NUMBER O MONTHS WHEN 1 rffACTERIOLOG1CAL LIMITS OF TUE UWS WLRC
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS HAtTDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X NO —
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES X NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WIThOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES NO x
Storage tank vents should be screened.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.3l)* <.005
BARIUM (l.O)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** .000
CHLORIDE (250 *
-------
REPOOT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY -
MANE OF FOREST Chattahoochee National Forest [ lATE 01 SURVEY 9/20/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Hidden Creek STORAGE none
TREATMENT none SOuRCE Handputnped well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER ( MIiNTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 10
NUI4BER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE IAS TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THt ACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF TIlE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MAND T RY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron, Manganese, Turbidity
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES — NO X
The sanitary seal leaks and should be repaired.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES NO
kEP Rj _ [ IIUIVI
OF FQRL .T tt o.chee Netionel oreet DATF OF 5URV Y Q/?of 73
NØJ O SUPPI Y The P e et STORAOE Spring bo% and tank
TkEATl N1 ’ fl fr#. sounor Spring
rçRI .00IcA . t’r
r J nnI TN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION ThAT NO GACTER 0LOOICAL
SAP LES WERE TAKENI
NUt ER ( ‘IF MONTHS IN P FflAR OF OP NAT1ON THAT ONE Mc t OLOO CAL
W4f LE WAS TAKEN,
NUt4B R P MON’UIS WHiR TH 1ACTERIOLO ICAL LIMITS OF 71W DM5 Wl -WG
NOIMEY _____
CI4ENt A I Q’JA 1ri
S I4ANDA1’D*Y LIMITS FAILED
DM3 RECO IENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANVIM.Y CM ITIO’4S
IS rHE $O C PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO _
O .vflow pipes should be screened,
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEWENTS? YES x HO —
IS TIlE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES — ?I0 ._,
0 .rf1ow pipe at tank should be screaned.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.Ol)* <.005
(o.05)**
BARIUM (1 .Oik < .05
CADMIUM (o.ol)** .000
CHLORIDE (25O)* 1O.
CHROMIUM ( L)5) .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 5
COPPER (1.U)* .018
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 pH 7.0
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.Ol)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* 11.2 SILVER (O.05)** .000
LEAD (O.05)** T OO SULFATE (250)* <25.
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.O5)* .120 SOLIDS (500)* 34.
MERCURY TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 80
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 zi’ic (5.0)* 5:2 -00
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (O.nl)* <.005
(O.05)**
BARIUM (l.o)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01 ‘ .000
CHLORIDE (250 ‘(lO,
CHROMIUM (.05 ** .000
COLOR (15 s.u,) 3
COPPER (l.O)* .000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10 p 1 1 7.8
2.4) ** SELENIUM (O.O1)** <.005
IRON (O.3)* .000 SILVER (O,05’I** .000
LEAD (0,O5)** .000 SULFATE (2505* <25.
M.8,A,S. (O,5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (O.O5) .000 SOLIDS (500)* 111.
MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.) .2
NITRATE (45)* <1.0 ZINC (5.O)* .045
RAW tJATER
DISTRIBUTTON #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
•CO E OED LP4 T MA D tORY LIMIT
VAL S APT ILI AW PEP LITIM .MLLS$ OTHTRWIST A.JIEO.
FE CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml CULIFORVi/IO0 ml
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
FEC I L
COUFORM/100 ml COLIFORM/100 ml
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
.UCOMIUNOtO LIMIT “MMNDATOqY L M T
AI. . YP.LVII API IILLIIMAMI PIP EI1II ( ‘ EI SA OTI ’ISWIU 1 11510.
0
0
0 0
-------
REPORT ON INIMVIDUAL WATER SUPI’LIES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE STUDY
I4AIIE OF FOREST Chattahoochee National Forest DATE OF SURVEY 9/20/73
NANE OF SUPPLY Keown Falls STORAGEn0ne
TREAThENT none SOURCE Handpumped well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 8
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES X
IS TIlL WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS
SAFE WATER WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS? YES x
PHYSICAL MD CHEMICAL RESULTS
SUPPLY OF
NO
ARSENIC (O.01)* <.005
(0.0:)) **
BARIUM (1.O)** <05
CADMIUM (&.O1) .000
CHLORIDE (250)* (10
CHROMIUM (.05)** 000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (LO)* .000
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
FLUORIDE (1.4 to <.10
2.4) **
IRON (O.3)* .061
LEAD (O.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (O.5)* < 25O
MANGANESE (O.05)* 000
MERCURY <.0005
NITRATE (45)* <.1.0
•RECOIIENDE 0 LIMIT ‘MM4O*TORV LIMIT
Mi.. IlIqIS Aft M%UI R**$ PEA LITEP UNLtS$ ITHEAVISE NOTEA.
COLIFORM/100 ml
FE CAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
IS OPER T1ON AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES
NO
NO
pH 7.9
SELENIUM (0.O1)** <.005
SILVER (O.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* <25.
TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS (500)* 185.
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .2
zINc (5.O) .470
1
0
-------
APPENDIX C
PROPOSED CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLING CRITERIA
119
-------
APPENDIX C
Proposed Chemical and Bacteriological Sampling Criteria
The chemical and bacteriological monitoring criteria
recommended in this report are based on the 1962
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards and
EPA, Water Supply Division (WSD) guidance. A change
in current WSD guidance on recommended frequency of
chemical and bacteriological sampling is under considera-
tion. This proposed change, summarized in the following
paragraphs, is based on a concept of routinely monitor-
ing for only those constituents in the standards where
the potential for failing a limit is the greatest.
Chemical Monitoring
This proposed change is based on the concept of
routinely monitoring only those constituents in the DWS
where the potential for failing a limit is the greatest. This
selection is based in part on an initial record of the water
quality.
To establish an initial record of water quality, a
complete analysis of all chemical and physical constitu-
ents for which a limit is established would be required
for all systems. This requirement would be considered
fulfilled if a reliable analysis has been performed for
each constituent in the past and there is no reason to
suspect that a significant change in water quality has
occurred. The requirement may be waived for an initial
record for pesticides and/or organics-carbon absorbable
for specific ground water sources, if there is evidence to
indicate that these constituents will not be found at
significant levels. A single complete analysis combined
with a review of watershed and aquifer characteristics,
possible avenues of contamination, potential pollution
sources, and available environmental monitoring data
will provide an acceptable initial record to establish a
routine analytical program.
A routine monitoring program would be established
for “selected” constituents where the potential for
faffing a limit is the greatest. a “selected” analysis would
include all constituents which, in an initial record, or
subsequent sampling analysis, were present at levels in
excess of 50% of the limit, plus any other determination
of potential “problem” contaminants. A selective
analysis would be required at least annually for surface
supplies and triennially for ground water supplies. A
more complete analysis would be required whenever
there is reason to believe there may be a significant
change in water quality. After this analysis, an appre-
ciable adjustment to the routine sampling schedule
would be made.
In summary, a periodic analysis of “selected”
parameters, coupled with information gained through
other means such as periodic sanitary surveys and
environmental monitoring, will be a cost effective way
to determine compliance with the physical and chemical
constituents of the DWS. The proposed alternative
monitoring requirements should result in a substantial
reduction of cost over those contained in this report,
which are based on the 1962 Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards.
Bacteriological Monitoring
The 1962 Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards are designed for interstate carrier water supply
systems. It is proposed that separate guidance be issued
for water systems having less than ten service con-
nections or serving less than 40 individuals on a
continuous basis. The frequency of bacteriological
sampling could be established by taking into considera-
tion the water supply source, method of treatment and
storage, past bacteriological record, and the protection
of the delivered water. The minimum number of samples
collected and examined each month for these systems
would be one. The time interval between samples would
be approximately 30 calendar days.
121
------- |