Laserfiche WebLink
laboratory conductivity? Although the holding time is much longer, results, in general, are not <br />much more accurate. The problem is that by doing two methods that give greater variability <br />can cause problems in determining trends and/or problems. <br />I prefer to continue with the laboratory pH for the sake of continuity and because it requires <br />almost no effort of the part of the operator or the Division. <br />Is the LGSC monitoring point in the correct location (monitoring downstream of Good Spring <br />Creek)? There appear to be mining related activities down stream from this location. <br />The impacts are apparently haul road runoff. While this could be a problem, I would hope <br />that haul road runoff is being adequately treated before entering Good Spring Creek. <br />There are also a few items that I would like to see included in the AHR in the future. First, I <br />would like to see creek flow and groundwater elevation data on the water chemistry graphs to <br />better see seasonal and flow related trends. Second, I would like to see a low level TSS <br />chart (say, up to 100 mg/L TSS) since most of the data is in this range. Outliers could be <br />noted at the appropriate location on the chart. Third, 1 would like to see the graphs for pH <br />with a smaller range (say 6-10 SU vs. 1-10) for more detail. <br />The Division can, by Rule, require an analysis and/or evaluation from the operator regarding <br />the results of the data collected as part of the Annual Hydrology Report. This requirement <br />should be written in the permit text if it is something that we feel should be done. <br />This concludes my review. In summary, the operator did an excellent job of completing their <br />monitoring requirements in accordance with the approved plan. The salinity in Good Spring <br />Creek is being evaluated in detail as part of PR-02. <br />