Laserfiche WebLink
. • <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />16. What is site 80 on Table 30? <br />D~Response: Site 80 should have been Site 800 <br />corrected. <br />The table has been <br />17. Table 30, Summary of Flow Rate Data is again this year, as in <br />1992, not representative of the data. Please correct all columes <br />~~ on this table to represent exactly what each column indicates and <br />ensure that this matches exactly with the data submitted. <br />Response: The columes on Table 30 have been corrected to represent <br />the data shown. <br />18. What does the colume flow 1993 represent on Table 30? <br />O ~ Response: The columns Flow 1993 should have been labeled Max and <br />Min Flow 1993. This has been corrected. <br />19. Figure 31 says the May 23 reading for site 16 is an estimate <br />and it reads 50 cfs. No value is shown in the Site 16 data for <br />that date. However, the level reading for April 29 is -1.82 and <br />the discharge is 58.73 cfs. The level for May 23 is -3.12. Why is <br />an approximate discharge not recorded and why does the graph have <br />11D a value of 50 cfs for May 23? <br />~~ , Response: Not recording a flow value for May 23 was an oversight <br />5~\~ and the correct value should have been approximately 150 cfs. The <br />table and graph have been corrected. <br />,\,~~ 20. Why were Wadge wells 026-79-4 and 026-79-6 sampled in June <br />~j' rather than April or May as required by the approved monitoring <br />plan? <br />O~ Response: The sampling was delayed until June due to poor field <br />conditions and DMG and Osm oversite inspections in May. <br />21. Why were all spoil wells sampled in June rather than April or <br />May? <br />~~ Response: Same as question 20. <br />Monitoring Frequency <br />Bedrock Wells <br />All missing data has been provided. <br />Spoil Wells <br />All missing data has been provided. <br />