Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Concerns -report credibility (Hydrology) <br /> <br />1. Many reported concentrations are several magnitudes greater than found <br />anywhere else in the basin i.e. several trace metals, NoZ, No„ general ions, and <br />TDS (pages 3-20, 3-21, throughout the report). <br />2. Grab samples (pg. 3-21) and samples from improperly purged well bores should <br />not be used to describe QW. Suspect much of the onsite EIS data may be from <br />such samples. Refer to various reports by Saulnier on reported large TDS <br />values from well data. In-hole solution may give erroneously large values. <br />3. Data appear selectively retrieved from the data base and past reports to indicate <br />that QW conditions exceed standards, even when the bulk of the data from the <br />site, and elsewhere, do not support these conclusions (pg. 3-17, 3-19). Could <br />this be a common practice throughout the report? <br />4. Hydrologic statements of facts are inconsistent and inaccurate in the report i.e., <br />gradients and flow direction (pg. 3-17, 3-20), constituents and TDS <br />concentrations (Pg. 3-17 thru 3-20 and throughout the report). This is <br />troublesome! <br />5. Monitoring plan is very inadequate (see comments on pages 2-21, 3-12, 3-21 <br />and 4-17). The monitoring plan should include participation by a disinterested 3'0 <br />party for verification. <br />