Laserfiche WebLink
.4.i <br />J•~ <br />not show results for any parameters in <br />December. Please explain. <br />b) The field conductivity values given in the <br />text for the Harvey Gap Outlet-Above Mine for <br />November and December are 700 and 590 <br />(units?), respectively. However, the table, <br />entitled "Field Parameters-Data and <br />Statistical Information, Harvey Gap Outlet- <br />Above Mine," reports field conductivities of <br />575 and 570 (units?) for November and <br />December, respectively. Please explain. <br />cj The logic is not readily apparent to the <br />Division in the discussion comparing field <br />conductivities above and below the mine with <br />lab conductivities below the mine, resulting <br />in a conclusion that the Harvey Gap Outlet- <br />$elow Mine conductivity data are not accurate. <br />Perhaps clarifying the numerical inaccuracies <br />above will make this discussion clearer. <br />d) Please clarify what units are being used in <br />the discussion of conductivity. In future <br />AHR's, please indicate the units for all <br />parameters monitored in order to allow the <br />Division to make an accurate assessment of the <br />mining impacts. <br />4j Please indicate the units for the flow measurements <br />reported in the tables at the back of the AHR. <br />5) The monitoring frequency requirements for the Harvey Gap <br />Outlet (above and below the mine) are semi-annual. <br />However, both of these sites were monitored only once. <br />Please explain. <br />6} Neither lab temperature nor manganese were analyzed in <br />the samples from the Harvey Gap Outlet (above and below <br />the mine), yet both of these parameters are required for <br />a full-suite analysis as specified in the approved <br />monitoring plan. Please explain. <br />7) The table which shows the results of the chemical <br />analyses for the seep below Harvey Gap reservoir shows <br />that this station was not sampled during 1995. A note at <br />the bottom of the table states that the samples were not <br />received by ACZ lab because of moving offices and changes <br />in personnel, and that the discrepancy was not noticed <br />until several months had gone by. <br />a) Was the seep actually measured in 1995? <br />b) Were the samples lost both times? <br />