Laserfiche WebLink
A significant overall improvement in meeting the required water <br />monitoring visits to each site is noted for the 1995 water year. <br />Bedrock Wells <br />1. Depth to water is reported as zero for October 1994 and <br />May 1995 for well FBR-11A. Is this value an accurate <br />reading or does it represent a missed measurement? If <br />this reading is believed to be accurate, please provide <br />your explanation of this zero value and the fall <br />pressurized values reported (-147.8, -194.0). This same <br />discrepancy exists for well 006-BRDH7. <br />Alluvial Wells <br />1. All monitoring visits and analysis were conducted as per <br />the approved plan. <br />Surface Water <br />1. All monitoring visits and analysis were conducted as per <br />the approved plan. <br />Natural Springs <br />1. The Division notes that for the second year in a row at <br />least one quarterly visit was missed-at springs SW#1 and <br />SW#2. Given the fact that these springs have been <br />subsided and are presently not exhibiting flow, the <br />Division is expecting that the required number of <br />monitoring visits will be conducted in the future. <br />Spoil Springs <br />1. All monitoring vis'_its and analysis were conducted as per <br />the approved plan. <br />Mine Water Discharge Sites <br />1. The discharge reported for site 109, Underground Mine <br />Water Discharge, for 1995 is .il cfs. However, meter <br />readings reported in Table 41B indicate more than four <br />times that amount was discharged. <br />125,549,900 gal/yr / 525,600 min/yr = 238 gpm <br />238 gpm X 1 cfs/448 gpm = .53 cfs <br />Please explain this discrepancy and correct as necessary. <br />2. The Division is confused by the totaling of the meter <br />readings reported in Table 42B for site 115. Other than <br />meter replacement or reset, should the values not be read <br />directly as shown in the table rather than totaled? <br />