Laserfiche WebLink
likely due to the higher TDS in Lorencito Canyon water (720 mg/I). Mining activities did not <br />contribute flow to Lorencito Canyon in 2002 (see 2002 data for surface station JC-1). Generally, <br />mining activities occur above the local water table and no impact to ground water is predicted. <br />Review of the 2002 AHR resulted in the following questions. <br />1. Report narrative under the heading Statistical Data Reduction Methodology states, <br />"mean, median, and standazd deviation values were generated to determine the accuracy <br />and precision of the data". Where aze these values presented in the report? <br />2. For future reports, please include the elevations of the measuring point for each well. <br />Well levels are reported as feet below this measuring point. Data is plotted by elevation <br />above MSL. <br />3. For future reports, please include the required field parameters somewhere in the report <br />tables on page two and page three. For ground water this is water level, purge volume, <br />temperature, pH, and conductivity (field). For surface water this is flow, crest flow, <br />temperature, pH, and conductivity (field). <br />4. Water quality analysis for springs includes Nitrate as N (dissolved). Please include this <br />information in the AHR. <br />5. Dates on the Stiff diagrams are reported as "1901"and 1902". Please correct this <br />information in future reports. <br />6. Reported water level data does not correspond with the associated plot for this data. <br />Seven feet of variation reported in the data tables is depicted on the plot by one or two <br />feet of variation in elevation. Please review and correct this discrepancy. <br />The Division has no fttrther questions at this time. Please respond to any above issues as <br />appropriate within 60 days. Thank you for conducting monitoring in accordance with your <br />approved plan. <br />Sincer y, <br />Kent Gorham <br />Environmental Protection Specialist II <br />