The Water That Closed Carnegie Creek

Posted by on March 29, 2011 under Updates. This post currently has 11 responses.

On Tuesday March 15, Mark Martinez and Dave Duffin, Directors at Carnegie Forever took water samples from the creek that runs through our OHV park. We are going to get the samples tested from a lab to determine if the water samples taken by the group that sued the State Park OHV Division are accurate.

We will have test results in the future and will publish the information.

11 Responses to “The Water That Closed Carnegie Creek”

  1. Dave Duffin says:

    On the day Mark Martinez and I took the samples we could only get two. One from the WEST end and one from the middle. The EAST end was dry. Then the rains again arrived so we’ll have to take more samples within a week (April 4-8, 2011)

  2. kurbycar32 says:

    You might also try taking a water sample from 2 points further upstream outside of the park. If the area in general is polluted by the labs or another reason you will see the outside samples as a control. pulling water out of the stream just inside the park assumes your getting clean water to begin with.

  3. Dave Duffin says:

    That’s true. Water enters from the WEST end of the canyon where cattle graze, and water from the Hetch Hetchy water line to SF.

    Also the Site 300 federal land across the road is an EPA Superfund Site with gun range (lead).

  4. Gerry Fogel says:

    How much did those authentic specimen containers cost? I’m kidding!

    • Dave Duffin says:

      pH and turbidity can be samples in basic containers – heavy metals must be done in a hi-tech mode -more later.

  5. Gerry Fogel says:

    Seriously now. I know you guys are working hard. I was wondering if I (everyone) could get some sort of update on the park. First the section that was closed from the fire. And secondly, the 3000 acres sitting the last 15 years.

    I noticed more closures this last weekend. I’m trying to figure out how the State thinks it can manage the park. What do I mean? Will as the sport continues to grow every year, the park continues to get smaller. So more people on less land seems like a losing battle. What if they opened more area? Wouldn’t it distribute and lessen the impact?

    Is there any thing positive coming our way?

    Thanks again for fighting the fight.

  6. Dave Duffin says:

    A BIG 10:4 Gerry.

    For all the intended purposes aside, putting more riders on less ground is a philosophy that destroys the environment. The King has no clothes.

  7. Janelle Byrkit says:

    I think it’s funny after reading today’s Newsletter how Mark’s test showed that the water leaving the park is safe enough to drink. That says alot doesn’t it!

    It’s also interesting to read on the EPA site the water issues at Site 300. But our park with water safe enough to drink, we are being threatened?? That totally makes sense! I’m kidding!

    On the EPA site for Site 300 overview it says in the descrption on Site 300 “Groundwater and soil have been contaminated with solvents and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), tritium, uranium-238, high explosive compounds (HMX, RDX), nitrate, and perchlorate. The primary health threat is drinking contaminated groundwater.”

    Quote from – (!OpenDocument

  8. Diana says:

    We always thought we were safe sitting next to a SUPERFUND site. I mean these sites are grossly contaminated. Nobody wants to go near them.

    We are a managed park and our own fees and off road gas taxes pay for making sure that it is managed for the preservation of “ecologically balanced recreation and sustained long term use”. How could anybody complain? Think again Diana.

    Thank you Dave and Mark for questioning their findings.

    I have one question: Does a patron saint need to be dead before he or she in nominated? Because if they don’t need to be dead, I nominate Dave patron saint of Carnegie. Nobody does more for us than Dave.

  9. Vic Madrid says:

    Dave: did you ever publish the results from the March 15 (&/or April?) water samples? Were the samples analyzed for pH, turbidity, & metals only? What about fuel hydrocarbons or VOCs? Any surface water samples from upstream of Carnegie SVRA?

  10. Ryan says:

    Do we have any updates yet on the water samples?

Leave a Reply