Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-4- <br />3. Request to discontinue sampling GW-S6, and replace it with well <br />GW-511. <br />A bailer, wire rope and other items are lost down this hole, making <br />proper sampling techniques almost impossible, and a representative <br />sample improbable. This request should be approved. Water level <br />measurements should still be obtained. <br />4. Request to submit the AHR at the end of February vs end of January. <br />This request should be approved, as the mine has other annual <br />reports due in late January. <br />G. Comments and Suggestions <br />Overall, this is a fairly good report. For the most part, data is <br />presented in a usable fashion, and is easy to interpret. The staff did <br />a very good job on the pollutant plume study section. Unfortunately, <br />some problems do exist. <br />1. All wells, springs, ponds, and streamflow sites referred to in the <br />text, should be clearly identified on all maps and in all tables by <br />the same number, i.e., consistency counts. Fifteen wells discussed <br />in the water level data section are either mislabeled or were not <br />included on Map 7.2. <br />2. The report should be proofed to eliminate typograhpical errors. <br />All site identification numbers should be cross-checked. <br />3. Depth to water and discharge measurement methods should be <br />discussed. <br />4. streamflow hydrographs should have the lines drawn in to eliminate <br />any confusion. <br />5. Two wells, GW-S21 and GW-S40-0 are reported as flowing, but no head <br />measurements were made. This situation should be corrected. Wells <br />GW-S19 and GW-S11 are occasionally reported as flowing; again, head <br />should be measured. <br />6. Water Typing Procedures Should Be Presented. <br />