Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1990, 1991 AND 1992 AHR REVIEW <br />Page 5 <br />MCC should move up the due date for the AHR to January 30 of <br />each year. The reason for the requested change is that the <br />AHR is now submitted six months into the next water year. If <br />the Division were to recommend changes to the AHR or <br />monitoring program, the changes could not be adapted until the <br />middle of the next hydrologic year or the year after. <br />1[CC's responses <br />MCC is unable to accommodate the Division on their request. <br />As indicated in response to prior, similar requests, MCC notes <br />that two of the surface water stations are USGS stations and <br />the data is not available for several months 1after the end of <br />the water year, tr,L,h~ ~-, 'f1R Cv~N'e~ ~~P ~1alr ? 50' ~ h V141 ~~~I I S <br />Is this acceptable? ~d-~,'W r Y.F/~~~~ <br />b~ ~~ 30~- <br />7. (#SA, Miscellaneous) I asked MCC to include mean values for <br />each monitoring site in addition to minimum and maximum <br />values. MCC responded that with their request to eliminate a <br />second sample if values fell outside the range of minimum and <br />maximum values, this data would no longer be useful and will <br />01(/ not be included in the AHR as there is no justification for it <br />/ within the context of the exhibit. <br />Do you believe that this information is useful and should be <br />included in the AHR? <br />r1 V'P I/~J J~ '1Y~~v1 <br />r y~^~n k <br />:n V~ <br />~ ~ ~~ <br />f~~ c,,,~ ~~i v ~,.~ t ~~ <br />~Ir } ' ~ ~ ~d~q~~' w~ 117 , <br />CEJ/007AHR.QUE <br />