Laserfiche WebLink
December of 1992, while all months except June show data <br />supporting mine discharge pumping rates of 30-45 gpm. This is <br />a possible violation of permit commitments to monitor this <br />surface water sampling site monthly to determine the mine's <br />impact on the stream flow entering the Purgatoire River. <br />3. Same issue: lack of monthly data on two canyon wells, Cherry <br />and Lopez. Per commitment in permit these wells should be <br />monitored every month. To date, only one month's reading has <br />occurred since 1990 (August 1992) on Cherry Canyon, with three <br />month's total in Lopez canyon since 1990 (none in 1990, August <br />and September in 1991, August only in 1992). If indeed these <br />canyons are dry, then perhaps the permit commitment should be <br />changed to an annual sampling to reflect on-the-ground <br />conditions. Nearby Wet Canyon seems to be, as it's name <br />reflects, amply sufficient for water samples to be collected <br />monthly. <br />4. MGDE-1, mine discharge monitoring surface water station has <br />not been calculated for any chemical parameters on the <br />permit's required short list (full suite). Flow, EC, pH, T, <br />dissolved O, Fe and TSS are the only parameters listed in the <br />AHR. TSS is down from 1991, 45.6 compared to 79. Important <br />trends showing an steady increase in sodium, TDS, hydroxide <br />and bicarbonate are impossible to determine if they are <br />continuing due to the lack of 1992 completed data. Please <br />provide an explanation why the data is absent from the report, <br />or provide the data required. <br />5. Likewise, CCS-i data insufficiency makes it difficult to <br />determine trends occurring over time since 1988. CCS-2's data <br />insufficiency eliminates any knowledge of chemical parameters <br />being exceeded or steadily increasing for the water year 1992. <br />Potential impact to vegetation is between SAR 5 to 25 mhos, <br />and has been increasing over time. No SAR data is included in <br />this year's report. Please provide an explanation for the <br />insufficient data collection at these two sites. <br />6. Flow data utilize the unit of cfs while graph and tables use <br />gal/day to indicate discharge flow from the mine. This poses <br />a problem since the flow is the direct result of discharge in <br />an otherwise dry creek bed. Please attempt to make the units <br />consistent for ease of transfer of knowledge, or provide an <br />explanation for this method to continue. <br />7. In addition, use of one sample to obtain a mean average for <br />all the parameters is invalid statistically for this report. <br />Please discontinue calculating mean averages using one <br />sample's results. <br />8. There is no mention of pond 005 discharge point as in previous <br />(1990-1991) reports. Is monitoring of this point still <br />