Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Table 2-9 should have "Water Level" rather than "Flow (ft3/sec)" for <br />identification of the initial data entries. <br />It would be preferable in the future for the order of parameters appearing in <br />Table 2-1 to be the same as in Table 2-2 thru 2-8. <br />Table 2-6 lacks TSS values for the ouarterly analyses and the iron values are <br />elevated. This suggests that the samples were not filtered which, if true, <br />should be done in the future. <br />Appendix 3: The annual studies of mine inflow are for the purpose of <br />reporting any changes in sources of the inflow as well as in quantities and <br />quality. Although the 1986 mine study apparently did not reveal any new <br />sources of inflow, it is unlikely that the quantity and duality of water at <br />these sources in 1986 were exactly the same as in 1984 and 1985. In the <br />future, WFC should provide current estimates of the quantity and duality of <br />inflow at the identified sources, which is the object of the annual study. <br />One might then also find a better correlation of annual inflow and discharge. <br />Appendix 4: Table 4 is missing from the 1986 AHR. Copies of this should be <br />sent by WFC for inclusion in the report. <br />In the future, Tables 2 thru 10 should show the correct year for the July and <br />August 1984 sampling dates. <br />If you have any ouestions regarding the above, please ca17 me. <br />Sincerely, <br />J~~s~~ <br />Jim Stevens <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />JS/1 al <br />9701 F <br />