Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REVIEW <br />QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PROTOCOLS <br />FOR THE COLLECTION OF SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA <br />SAN LUIS PROJECT, <br />COSTILLA COUNTY, COLORADO <br />A Document Prepared for <br />Battle Mountain Resources <br />by <br />Halepaska and Associates <br />Reviewed by: <br />Harry H. Posey <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />GENERAL COMMENTS <br /> <br />1. There needs to be a sampling point on the Rito Seco downstream of the tailings <br />impoundment. The present RS-5 point is in a dry alluvial valley and yields no water. <br />The proposed sampling point would need to be outside the permit boundary. I <br />recommend a point just downstream of where the light duty road crosses the stream <br />as shown on Figure 1 in the Protocol Proposal. <br />2. Although many monitor wells have been installed, only three routinely yield water <br />enough for sampling: M-4 and M-10 on the Rito Seco, and M-9 west of the tailings <br />impoundment area. Although M-9 is apparently downgradient of the tailings ponds, <br />M-4 and M-10 are also down gradient of the tailings. Whether a leak from the <br />tailings would flow toward the north (toward M-4 and M-10) or w)lether it would <br />flow toward the west (toward M-9), or whether it would flow in orther directions <br />cannot be determined either from the permit or from the Monitoring Protocol <br />Proposal. <br />The April 1992 NOV abatement plan calls for sampling M-2, M-6, M~7, M-8 and M- <br />9. However, because M-2, 6, 7, and 8 are dry, and because we do not know the <br />specific flow path from the tailings area to the Rito Seco, there should be more <br />sampling. Therefore, M-4, M-10, and RS-4 should be routinely sampled until the <br />